tv Public Affairs CSPAN November 15, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
institution is a better place and the issue of ensuring economic opportunity for here in the united states and around the world is brighter for the work that has been done by judy biggert and i'm happy to yield her 2 1/2 minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you so much, mr. chairman, for your kind words. but also for what you have done for this country as far as trade and how you have really worked so hard to make sure that all of the members of congress realize the impact that trade has for our economy and for our place in the world, either bilateral agreements, multilateral commitments, you were always there to make sure that we moved forward in that and i really thank you and i do rise in support today of this rule and h.r. 6156, to grant permanent normal trade relations to russia. .
this important legislation is a small step towards a big reward. without it the united states exporters and service providers will continue to lose business to our foreign competitors that have already have trade relations -- relationships with russia. and once we lose those markets, our competitors will only become stronger and better positioned to surpass the u.s. in a critical marketplace of the 21st century global economy. according to the national association of manufacturers, russia imported over $500 billion in goods last year, and of that total only 5% came from u.s. exports. this bill will lift outdated policies and restrict american access to russian markets. as a result studies show u.s. producers can expect to achieve double-digit increases over the next decade in exports of heavy machinery, agricultural machinery, chemicals, and services. this is particularly critical for my home state of illinois
where we have fallen behind japan and korea in these export categories. most importantly, granting russia permanent normal trade relations gives the u.s. a level playing field on which we can compete from a position of strength in thames of intellectual property and agricultural exports. it will provide a reliable forum for trade dispute resolution. and i would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the bill to grow american exports and create good jobs here in the united states by supporting this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. fattah: i want to thank the gentleman for his great work on this legislation and also to my colleague who will be leaving us, the chairman of the rules committee, who has done some great work over his many years.
but i rise in support of this legislation. i think it is important to see as this continuum moves our relationship with russia changed, and now moving into a circumstance of additional trade and enhanced trade. i'm one that's very focused on improving manufacturing here in the united states, and this is going to open up tremendous opportunities for our manufacturers. i want to commend those who have worked together on this and the obama administration for their continuing efforts to open up trade opportunities so that we can make it here and sell it everywhere, which is, i think, should be our focus. in addition to that, i think it shows how over time old wounds can be healed and new relationships can be built. i spoke earlier today with the consulate general for the state of israel in philadelphia
offering my support and concern for the unfortunate circumstances that are taking place in the middle east now in which hundreds of bombs have -- rockets have been shot at israel. some of its largest cities as the targets. and this is a matter in which obviously much high levels in our government, there have been communications and the assurance that israel has the right to defend itself. but i think that we can see in this russia trade agreement that if we can get to the point where there can be relationships that are built on self-interest and economic development, that we can put the weapons aside and move towards a circumstance in which people are focused on economic activity. we see in this crisis a circumstance that we hope will resolve itself. obviously we stand with our ally, but we also hope for a day in which peace will reign and
economic opportunities. i agree with david dreier, really is a way in which eventually we can create a circumstance in which people will not have the necessity to resort to violence. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. i thank the house and i hope that we will pass this bill. mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield? i express to my very dear friend from philadelphia, express my appreciation, mr. speaker, for his very kind words and to say that the recognition, the recognition that economic liberalization is one of the greatest keys to our goal of enhancing human rights, the standard of living, and the quality of life for our fellow human beings is a very important point. i want to underscore that point that was made. yes, the magnitsky legislation is important, but i'm going to talk in just a moment about what some leaders in russia have had to say about permanent normal trade relations and its impact on human rights.
i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: with that i'm very happy to yield toe my very good friend from huntington beach, my fellow californian, mr. rohrabacher, three minutes. pending that let me say he and i have been great friends since he was a speechwriter for ronald reagan. we have worked closely on a wide range of things. and i just told him, mr. speaker, since i'm leaving congress, he's taught me one thing and one thing only, and that is how to make margaritas. with that i'm happy to yield to my friend, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of the rule and this legislation and note that the classified nature of that margarita formula should never be disclosed to an enemy of the united states, of course, but we will be glad to transmit that information to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. in the spirit of bipartisanship. i do rise in support of this rule and h.r. 6156. the legislation to grant
permanent normal trade relations status to russia. during the 19 0's as was just mentioned, i worked for ronald reagan in the white house and was part of a team dedicating itselves to bring down the soviet dictatorship. i might add that dave dryor was a member of that team. today's russia is not yesterday's soviet union. that's the most important message. over 20 years of reform have created an imperfect country, yes, but also a new russia with a relative free press and churches that will once -- were once closed by the communist which are now filled with those who had gathered to worship god. many here in the united states have not appreciated the dramatic change and continue to view russia as if it were the soviet union 30 years ago. what we do today is long overdue. our protracted refusal to grant russia permanent normal trade
relations status has been counterproductive and hypocritical. counterproductive for years because it's been an unnecessary barrier to better bilateral relations between our two countries. hypocritical because over a decade ago we have rushed to give permanent most trade relations status to communist china. which still continues to be the world's worst human rights abuser. all the arguments made to refuse it to russia have always applied 100 fold to communist china. however, i have not heard the critics of this bill calling for an end to our trade status with communist china, which i might add, human rights in china is worse today than when we granted most favored nation status to them. if we want to have a real debate about trade, the place to start is with communist china and not to be looking at a democratic
russia. pntr for china has cost millions and millions of jobs over the decade. our trade relation was russia will benefit both of us, both the people in the united states as well as the russian people. how can we justify such a pro-communist china policy which has had no political reform and not giving it to russia which has had dramatic political reform? two decades ago while i was working in the white house i was arguably one of the soviet union's worst enemy. but my boss, ronald reagan, never wanted the people of russia and the people in the united states to be enemies. he envisioned once the communist party had been discarded that our two peoples would one day be friends and trading partners and, yes, even allies. russian society has moved far from the cold war. it is past time that we do the same. we need to reach out to them, stand together against an alarming rise in power in communist china and against
radical! ic tyranny which targets russians as well as americans. i encourage my colleagues to join me in voting and pass this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to my gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: i thank my colleague from massachusetts. i also want to thank my colleague from california. this is one of the last rules mr. dreier will be managing here on the floor. mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield? mr. connolly: yes. mr. dreier: i would like to ask my friend if he looked at the schedule. it's light years away until i deal with the last rule. mr. connolly: when it comes to fiscal cliff i hope he's right. i hope he'll be so busy that you'll have no time to think about anything else. but i do want to congratulate you on this rule and on your tenure here in the house. you will be missed. the jackson-vanik amendment, mr. speaker, was a product of the
cold war. when the communist threat was ever present, communist countries had little or no rights. as mr. rohrabacher, our friend from california, just said, we need to recognize that today's russia while hardly a perfect place when it comes to human rights and political expression is not the soviet union. we need a positive framework, economic, political, social, to move forward. this pntr, normalizing trade relations, allows us to wrangle with russia when we think they are wrong in trade disputes at the world trade organization. absent this normalization, we don't have that leverage. furthermore, the committee is to be really commended as is my colleague from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for creating a statutory framework for addressing one of the most egregious human rights violations in modern russian history involving sergei
magnitsky. this framework could ultimately be a model, frankly, as we move forward in other parts of the world as well, but it certainly maris a positive trade relationship possibility with vigilant and vigorous human rights enforcement. and vigilance. i commend the committee for marrying the two, for allowing us positively to go forward in a relationship, troubles and all, with modern day russia. i urge passage of the underlying legislation, h.r. 6156, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from virginia has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this juncture i have no further requests for time and if the gentleman would like to close then i'll offer closing remarks. mr. mcgovern: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of the time. i ask unanimous consent to insert two articles into the congressional record. one of a "new york times" entitled russia plans to retry dead lawyer in tax case, and the
other from "the washington post" entitled the kremlin's blacklist. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, from the beginning the magnitsky act has been a bipartisan and bicameral effort. the final language in title 4 of h.r. 6156 is the result of genuine collaboration and compromise. i want to thank, again, the chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier. i'd like to thank speaker boehner, majority leader cantor, majority whip mccarthy, democratic leader pelosi, democratic whip hoyer, house foreign affairs committee chairwoman ileana ros-lehtinen, and ranking member, mr. berman of california, as well as mr. levin who has been so very helpful on the ways and means committee for all their support in drafting the bill under consideration by the house this week. it has been a pleasure to work with all these individuals.
mr. speaker, as i have said i believe the magnitsky provisions are strong, flexible enough to be well implemented, and allow us to have a cooperative relationship with russia on trade and other issues while holding human rights violators, including those responsible for the brutal treatment and death of sergei magnitsky accountable. as i stated earlier i would not be supporting pntr for the russian federation if this bill did not include the sergei magnitsky rule of law accountability act. mr. speaker, i agree with what has been said about the importance of increased trade in terms of promoting more positive reforms in countries like russia, but there's always a problem when you have a country that doesn't abide by the rule of law. where impunity rules the day. and in cases like that, i think it is important to have a tool like the magnitsky legislation to make it clear to those in
russia, not just involved with the sergei magnitsky tragedy, but with other terrible human rights crimes, were involved in corruption, make it clear to them that there is a consequence . that even with -- even if within their own country they are not brought to justice, the world will know who they are and take appropriate action. . this to me is a very, very powerful tool. that compliments, that compliments the benefits of pntr for russia. i would say to my colleagues that this does represent a genuine compromise, the sergei magnitsky act, which i'm the author of in the house. in the house we originally wanted this to be global in its approach. but in the spirit of compromise, it has been narrowed down to russia. i think if this proves to be a
good tool, and if it is implemented properly, hopefully we can broaden it. because i do think that it is important for the united states to make it clear to the world that if we stand for anything we stand out loud and foursquare quor human rights -- for human rights. with regard to the rule, mr. speaker, i'd like to say that i'm disappointed that this rule, on a bipartisan bill, includes lockdown provisions that restrict the rights of the minority in this body. i would have preferred that this rule only include procedures for the bipartisan pntr magnitsky bill but in the spirit of bipartisanship i'm not going to dwell on that. i'm just going to point it out for the record. and in conclusion, let me just make this one observation. this is an example of bipartisanship. and people are coming together and are supporting an important piece of legislation. i hope that some of this rubs off on some of the bills that
we're going to be considering in the days and weeks to come. but this really is how this house of representatives should be run and again -- and my compliments to the leadership of the republican party and to the leadership of my own party were not just gratuitous. i meant it. this is a process in which those of us who care about the issue of human rights felt that we were included and as a result i think we've come up with a bill that deserves support. i think it would make a positive difference in the lives of a lot of people in russia and i think it will result in terms of trade , in a situation where there is a more level playing field, where we have an agreement that just doesn't benefit the few at the expense of the many but we may have an agreement here that will help benefit the many. and so having said that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the bill and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california.
the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, let me offer some closing remarks and say that as i reminisce, having spent virtually my entire adult life as a member of this body, privileged to stand in this well for nearly 3 1/2 decades, making arguments, engaging in debate, as i said, i'm very gratified that we were able to work on one of the many final issues, the first issue of the lame duck session, in a bipartisan way. as my friend just said. and i was proved to -- privileged to work with him and have him as a co-signer of this dear colleague letter. that we sent out in support of this legislation. i'm reminded, having listened to remarks from both sides of the aisle, my california colleague, mr. rohrabacher, and others, that on the sixth of november, 1979, ronald range announced his
candidacy for -- reagan anougesed his candidacy for -- announced his candidacy for president of the united states. he said something that the time was seen as absolute heresy, not only here in the united states, but around the world and within this hemisphere. on the sixth of november, 1979, reagan enadviceaged this notion of eliminating tariff barriers among all of the americas. so that we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas and, yes, people as well. that's aspirational, that's a notion that he put forward and a few years later in the congress, i was privileged to be elected the day ronald reagan was elected president. i joined with my colleagues, mr. kolbe, mr. lewis, and introduced legislation calling for the elimination of tariff barriers among canada, the united states and mexico that led to the north american free trade agreement. mr. speaker, the idea behind
this, in fact elimination of tariff and nontariff barriers, is so that we can enhance freedom, enhance opportunity and improve the quality of life and the standard of living for people not only here in the united states but around the world as well. and we understand that even if repressive societies, that if we can proceed with economic liberalization, political liberalization will follow. and i have to counter the statement that was made by my california colleague, mr. rohrabacher, about china. i am not going to stand here on the day that ping has become the new leader of china and claim that things are perfect in china. but i will argue the permanent normal trade relations and china's access to the world trade organization has -- accession to the world trade organization has been beneficial. why? because if one looks at the great leap forward in china, there were tens of millions of people who were killed, during
the cultural revolution well over a million people were starved to death. so you look at the great leap forward, you look at the cultural revolution in china and you look today at the horrendous human rights violations that exist in china and my goal is still to see us move towards political pluralism, the development of democratic institutions, a greater sense of the rule of law, but there are a few thousand political prisoners in china. it's horrible. it's not acceptable. but, mr. speaker, i argue that that is progress. and it was 10 years ago that i was very privileged to work with president clinton in seeing china's accession to the world trade organization and permanent normal trade relations established. we were able to do that right here in a bipartisan way and things are better than they were. they're not great, they're not acceptable. but, mr. speaker, they are better than they were. now, i know there are some who -- and, mr. rohrabacher very
thoughtfully did point to the fact that russia is obviously not what it was like under the soviet union. i mean, we all can think back to the refuseniks, i remember adopting refuseniks. jews that were unable to emigrate from russia. and you think about all of the military expenses that were involved in the cold war, stories. i just came back from georgia and ukraine, overseeing their elections, having been throughout eastern and central europe and heard stories about the kind of repression that existed. and so as bad as russia is today, it's still a marketed improvement over what existed during the cold war and the time of the soviet union. and a lot of us held out a great deal of hope for russia. more son that we have right now, just a few -- more so than we have right now, just a few years ago. and because we've seen backward steps, i talked about my friend who at this moment is languishing in a russian prison for simply criticizing vladimir
putin. and i'm here today in large part because i want, i want him to be freed. i want to see an end to that kind of treatment of individuals. and similarly, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the tragic death of sergei magnificent i ask -- magnitsky. it was absolutely horrible that this 37-year-old lawyer, a young man with, as my friend pointed out, a wife and small children was imprisoned for simply being a whistleblower and he was tortured, abused and left to die three years ago tomorrow. and again in the 21st century, that is intolerable. it can't be accepted. it can't be accepted. and that's why we need to continue to pursue this effort on economic liberalization. i'm not going to counter what my
friend said about the importance of a magnitsky component to this legislation but i would like to share the words of some formerly incarcerated russians. some of whom were inconsiders rated. human rights leaders in russia, who long before we did the magnitsky -- magnitsky language talked about how important this is. let me just read a bit of this letter that is signed by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven human rights activists. alexander lebedev, it goes down the line of these russians who have been opposition leaders in the forefront. so before we did this, understanding how important pntr and china's access to the w.t.o. would be, they said the persistence on the books of the jackson-vanik amendment does not help to solve the problems with democracy and human rights in modern russia at all. moreover it brings direct harm. this helps mr. putin and his
cronies. basically saying that repeal of jackson-vanik is something that is going to help undermine putin and his cronies. they go on to say, those who defend the argument that jackson-vanik's provisions should still apply to russia in order to punish putin's anti-democratic regime only darken russia's political future, hamper its economic development and frustrate its democratic aspirations. we leading figures of the russian political opposition strongly stand behind the efforts to remove russia from the provisions of the jackson-vanik amendment which is exactly what this measure has done before. while i'm gratified that we've been able in a bipartisan way to include magnitsky, there is recognition that simply repeal of jackson-vanik would go a long way toward undermining the political repression that exists in russia today. mr. speaker, i also have to say on this overall issue of trade, thanks for being spread around, i want to express my
appreciation to my very good friend and colleague, dave camp, and kevin brady, who chairs the trade subcommittee. i've worked with them for many, many years on the important issue of trade liberalization and our pursuit of ensuring we can create good, american jobs. union and nonunion jobs by opening up these markets. and i also have to say that i know people like to malign the 87 newly elected republican members, this tea party class of crazy people, i mean, you read that, you hear that in the media on a regular basis and frankly i have to say, mr. speaker, the leadership that they have shown on this issue and on the issues of colombia, panama and south korea are very, very important issues. so, mr. speaker, let me just say i express my appreciation to the fact that 73 of mem signed a letter to the president saying that this needed to be brought forward. we want to work in a bipartisan way to make this happen. i urge support of this rule and tomorrow when we have the vote
on pntr, a strong bipartisan support on behalf of the efforts of messrs. camp and levin and brady and others, and with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote oned. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the house has been debating the rule for a bill that would normalize trade with russia. when they return, a vote on that rule. that will be sometime later on
this afternoon. the rule allows for an hour and a half much general debate. more live house coverage later on today. closed hearings are happening today on the benghazi attack. the house hearing happened this morning. house intelligence committee later today. the senate intelligence committee, c-span cameras covering any media or any member reaction to that. and if there is, we'll show that to you later in our schedule. we are also waiting to take you live to president obama in new york. he's touring statent island and other locations in the wake of the cleanup and aftermath of hurricane sandy. when that video becomes available, we'll take you there live. while we wait for that, we'll bring you a portion of this morning's "washington journal." host: independent vermont senator bernie sanders joins us from capitol hill this morning. thank you for being with us. and to get started here's a question. should democrats be ready to walk away from the bargaining table as you and the congress address this fiscal cliff? should democrats be willing to
say if we can't get what we want we are willing to go over the cliff? guest: i think all of us want to make sure, want to do everything that we can to see that the fiscal cliff is avoided. but i think what we have seen in the past is a level of obstructionism on the part of republicans who said hey it's either my way or the identifyway. election vs. consequences. democrats want -- elections have consequences. democrats won. democrats won 25 out of 33 seats in the senate. they won seats in the house. one of the key issues during that campaign was whether or not we will extend tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. and virtually every debate, every statement that the president made, every speech that he made he said, i will not extend those tax breaks. i think the american people voted for him, voted for other people, i was up for re-leaks, that's what i said. i think it is incumbent upon the republicans right now to understand that with a trillion
dollar deficit, a $16 trillion national debt, millionaires and billionaires in this country are going to have to play a significant role in helping us deal with deficit reduction and that that burden cannot simply fall on working families or the middle class who are already being squeezed very, very hard as a result of this terrible wall street recession. to answer your question, i hope we can avoid the cliff, but i think right now the president and the democratic leadership have got to be strong and say to the republicans, the american people, not only in this election but poll after poll after poll have told us, the wealthiest people cannot continue to get huge tax breaks. and democrats have to remain firm. host: here's the bottom line of what the so-called fiscal cliff could look like. we are talking about $607 billion reduction in the budget deficit. it includes nearly $400 billion in tax increases. over $100 billion in spending
cuts. and over $100 billion in other revenue changes. senator sanders, let's talk about entitlement programs that you advocated for and sought for. is there room to negotiate on the eligibility age of medicare or social security? where can you negotiate on those? guest: let me back up for a second. everybody knows, we talk about going over the cliff, it's a 10-year process. i want everybody to be clear that if by december 31 an agreement is not reached, that does not mean that an agreement could not be reached in january or february. which would make unnecessary many of the terrible cuts that people have talked about. in terms of social security, medicare, medicaid, let me say the following. a first point to be made, i am very happy that majority leader harry reid has recently made the
point, and ironically enough back in the 1980's president ronald reagan made this point, social security right now has not contributed one nickel to the deficit because as everybody knows it's funded independently by the payroll tax. the 6.2% that workers put in and the equal amount that employers put in. so when people talk about deficit reduction, we got a serious problem, but social security has nothing to do with that. in fact, today the social security trust fund has a $2.7 trillion surplus, can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 21 years. our goal is to make social security solvent for the next 75 years. we have work to do. social security in my view has nothing to do with deficit reduction. should be removed from this discussion. i was glad, harry reid, majority leader has made that point. i hope the president agrees with that. in terms of medicare and
medicaid, what we should be clear about is that in the so-called obamacare, affordable care act, we extended the like of medicare -- life of medicare by over 10 years. i think we have got to do more. in america right now we are the only nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. which is why i am an advocate, strong advocate of a single payor of a medicare system. i hope the state of vermont will lead that country in that direction. the bottom line is our system today, including medicare, is wasteful. it is too bureaucratic. we can make efficiencies in it. but at a time when seniors are struggling right now with their health care bills, i do -- will not support cuts in the benefits for people on medicare. for example, one way that we can save money in medicare is that when we pass the medicare
prescription drug part d program, the republicans insisted, put in writing, language that said that medicare could not negotiate drug price was the pharmaceutical industry. the result of that is that many instances medicare is paying higher prices for drugs than the veterans administration or department of defense. that is absurd. if we do that we can save medicare substantial sums of money. medicaid, we are in the middle of a horrendous recession right now. we have 50 million people today who have no health insurance. and to say that we are going to just willy-nilly deny millions of kids health insurance by removing medicaid from them is unfair, just doesn't make sense to me. my point is that right now we have an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth and income in this contry. people are doing phenomenonly
well, as warren buffett reminds us, their effective tax rate is quite low. i think that by asking the wealthiest people to start paying their fair share of taxes by ending enormous loopholes within corporate tax law, by taking a hard look at defense spending in which we are spending three times as much as we did in 1997, the other -- >> follow this program with senator bernie sanders in our video library at c-span.org. we take you live to staten identifyland. president obama is visiting new york today following up to the cleanup and aftermath of hurricane sandy. live coverage here on c-span.
>> president obama is live here in staten island. he came up this afternoon to view the recovery from hurricane sandy. he's been joined by a number of officials, charles schumer, the senator from new york, also secretary, housing secretary, and janet napolitano, the homeland security secretary. this is live coverage here on c-span. the president returning to the white house later this afternoon.
and covering this event, tweets that during his visit to a shelter and assistance tents on staten island, president obama offers words of consolation to locals and thanks volunteers. we expect to hear some comments from president obama. we'll stay here live. we'll also let you know that we are expecting a news briefing coming up at about 2:00 p.m. eastern from the attorney general, eric holder. this is in relation to the settlement announced today b.p. oil's paying $4.5 billion fine, settlement, in the case for the gulf coast oil spill. that news conference is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. eastern. we hope to take you there live.
>> as you can see in that mob of folks from staten island and reporters the president is actually in new york. he came up just a bit earlier today and started his afternoon in new york with a helicopter tour above some flooded and burned out sections of queens and staten island. he made an aerial tour over the neighborhood that included the breezy point community where roughly 100 homes were burned in a massive fire during the storm.
>> live here on staten island waiting to hear possible comments by president obama who's been touring parts of queens and staten island that were seriously damaged and affected by the aftermath of hurricane sandy, superstorm sandy as it's been called. we also hope to take you live shortly to new orleans where attorney general eric holder will speak about the government's $4.5 billion settlement with b.p. over the oil spill in 2010. and news from the associated press this afternoon that two b.p. employees have been indicted on manslaughter charges in that oil spill, during that oil spill. we'll hear more from the justice department during that news briefing. also, coming up at 3:00 today, representative ed markey will
>> good afternoon, on behalf of all new yorkers, mr. president, it is an honor to welcome you here to our city. we are here with our two great senators, and the governor and i wanted to particularly thank you and particularly thank all the volunteers who have worked so hard for the last two weeks. 24/7 a lot of them, they have made all the difference. we are getting out of this. we are getting ahead. we did lose 23 staten islanders here, one was police officerar tur whose -- officer artur, whose funeral i went to. someone unfortunately this city will miss. we are making our ways back. mr. president, thank you particularly for all the help we have gotten from fema, from homeland secretary napolitano who is with us, from human -- health and human services secretary, and all of your team, craig fugate from fema, the bur
ough president and i and red cross wants to thank everybody here. we have a new program, rapid response. we have a whole bunch of people, electricians, car penters going out. we are going to get everybody back with electricity. then we'll rebuild in a better way. thanks to everything that our senators have brought us and the congressman has brought us, this is going to be something we'll look back on and realize we all pull together when nature dealt us a blow. let me introduce somebody that i can't tell you how well we have worked together. the response that we have had is because we have, we combined all the state and city agencies together, governor cuomo has been as cooperative and great and forward thinking as anybody could be. i wanted to personally -- personally thank him for that. >> thank you very much. first let me thank mayor bloomberg. i'm sure everyone in new york
city joins me in thanking the mayor for his leadership, his competence, his diligence, professionalism, his team has been tireless. mr. mayor, we thank all of you very much. we thank all of the first responders, every one of them. we thank the state and local elected officials who are all here today. special thank you to the burough president who has done great job of leadership on the ground. the county president and nassau county and suffolk county, we thank them all. most of all, mr. president, we thank you and we thank your cabinet, especially secretaries napolitano and donovan and craig fugate for their unprecedented federal presence and effort. i'd also like to thank our federal officials, senator schumer, senator gillibrand, congressman grimm who is with us today for all their help in securing the necessary funds so we can rebuild. 17 days ago on october 29
everything changed for new york. 60 new yorkers lost their lives, tens of thousands saw their homes damaged or destroyed, communities from staten island to long beach to lindenhurst were decimated. 17 days ago we felt a new vulnerability for the first time . we have much to do, there is no doubt. we must provide shelter and support in the short term. we must repair thousands of homes and small businesses. we must reknit the fabric of tattered communities. we must rethink and redesign for the long term because extreme weather as we have learned is the new normal. but we are new yorkers, mr. president, we are tough, and we are resilient, and we will overcome and we will be the better for it. also, mr. president, we take comfort in knowing that we are
not alone. while we may not have had heat in our homes, our hearts have been warmed by the outpouring of support, generosity, and love from people all across the nation. people from across the country have joined us, have donated, sent food, and we want to say to say a heart felt thank you to each and every one of them. and mr. president thank you to you because you have exempfide the spirit of partnership and community. i was touched by your phone calls and tension even during times that were very busy. you were there for us, you were there for new york and we thank you mr. president. and together mr. president, we will not just rebuild new york, we will build back better than ever before. ladies and gentlemen, the
president of the united states. [applause] thank you so much. i'm going to be relatively brief. i came up here right after the storm and was on the jersey side. and i promised to everybody that i was speaking on behalf of the country when i said we are going to be here until the rebuilding is complete. and i meant it. so i'm going to come back today but i'm also going to be coming back in the future to make sure we have followed through on that commitment. i want to thank the outstanding leadership that's been provided by state and local officials. obviously the governor and mayor have done an outstanding job. thank you so much for your leadership at a time when the
folks here on this island were obviously going through extrard narrowly difficult times. the people of long island who are going through tough times. across the board we've seen cooperation and a spirit of service. for the first responders who are here, the police officers t firefighters, the e.m.s. folks and sanitation workers who sometimes don't get credit who have done heroic work we are great to feel you because you exempfie what america is all about. i'm grateful to the red cross who have been responsive in disasters all around the country. and i thank the volunteers. we had some people from canada who had come down to help out. during difficult times like this we're reminded that we're bound together and we have to
look out for each other. and a lot of things that seem important, the petty differences melt away and we are bound together and are going to stand together in their hour of need. now more specifically, we are now still in the process of recovery as you can see aws travel around parts of staten island. as we flew over other parts of the city and the region that had been impacted. there is still a lot of clean up to do. people still need emergency help, they still need heat and power and food. they still need a shelter. kids are still trying to figure out where they are going to school. so there is a lot of short term immediate stuff that has to be dealt with and we are going to make sure that we stay here as long as people need that immediate help. that is fema's primary task.
we'll be coordinating with state and local govepls to make sure folks are getting the short term help. but there is going to be some long term rebuilding that is required. you look at this block and you know that this is a community that is deeply rooted. most of the folks i met have been here 20, 30, 50 years. they don't want to see their community uprooted but there has to be a plan for rebuilding. and that plan is going to have to be coordinated and have resources. so i'm going to work with congressional delegation also working with governor christy and the jersey delegation to try to come up with a game plan for how we're going to be able to resource the operation. and i'm confident we're going
to be able to do it. but everybody has to focus on getting the job done. we're going to have to put some of the turf battles aside and make sure everybody is focused on doing the job as opposed to who is getting the credit or contracts or sometimes that stuff that goes into the rebuilding process. on the federal level because this is going to be such a big job. i wanted to assign one particular person who would be in charge from our perspective because fema truns recovery process, it doesn't focus on the rebuilding. for that we've got to have all governmental agencies involved. we thought it would be good to have a new yorker who is going to be the point person so our outstanding h.u.d. secretary who used to be the head of the new york housing authority so he knows about new york and
building is going to be our point person and he's going to work with the mayor, the governor, the county officials to make sure that we come up with a strong, effective plan which and then i'll be working with the members of congress to do everything we can to get the resources needed to rebuild. and i have every confidence that shawn is going to be doing a great job so people should feel some confidence about that. let me close by saying this, i had the opportunity to give some hugs and communicate thoughts and prayers to the moore 23578ly. they lost two young sons during the course of this tragedy. and obviously i expressed to them as a father, as a parent my heart break over what they
went through. and they are still a little shell shocked. but they came here in part because they wanted to say thank you to all of the people that have been supportive of them. they mentioned kevin of the n.y.p.d. who when they knew that their sons were missing lieutenant galleger made a point of staying with them and doing everything he could so ultimately they knew what had happened with their boys and were able to recover their bodies and has been with them as a source of support ever sibs since. that is not in the job description of lieutenant gallagher. he did that because that is what so many of our first responders do. they go above and beyond the call of duty to respond to people in need. and so i want to give a shout
out to lieutenant galleger but i want to point out the moors want me to mention him. that says something about him as well. and that spirit and sense of togetherness and looking out for one another, that is what is going to carry us through this tragedy. it's not going to be easy. there are going to be some complaints over the next several months. not serve going to be satisfied. i have to tell you the insurance companies and some of the other private sector folks who are involved in this, we need you to show some heart and spirit in helping people rebuild as well. but when i hear the story of the moore's abdomen i hear about lieutenant galleger that makes me confident we're going to be able to rebuild. i'm proud of you new yorkers, you're tough and bounce back. the same is going to be this
>> good afternoon. i'm here with the sstnt attorney general from the justice department and the security and exchange commission of enforce. and head of deep water verizon task force and announcing the latest step forward in our ongoing efforts to achieve justice for those whose lives and livelihoods were impacted by the largest environmental disaster in the history of the united states.
and to hold accountable those bore responsibility for this tragedy. today in united states state district court here in louisiana in new orleans the department filed a 14 count information charging b.p. with eleven counts of felony manslaughter. one count of felony obstruction of justice and violations of the clean water and migetoir bird treaty acts in connection with the deep water horizon oil spill that began in april of 2010. b.p. has agreed to plead guilty to all 14 criminal charges including responsibility for the deaths of eleven people and the events that led to an unprecedented environmental catastrophe. the company has also agreed to pay $4 billion in fines understand penalties. this marks both the largest
single criminal fine, more than $1.25 billion and the largest total criminal resolution $4 billion in the history of the united states. it's stands as a testament to the hard work countless investigators, attorneys, support staff members and other persons from the deep water horizon task force and state and local agencies who have worked to advance a complex and wide ranging investigation that began even before the oil well was capped. and it constitutes a major environmental achievement of fulfilling a promise that i made here in new orleans along with my colleagues nearly two years ago to engage with our partners and count parts to determine the cause of this disaster, to respond it's consequences and seek justice on behalf of the victims and to
enable gulf residents to recover and rebuild. to this end, under the terms of the agreement we announced today about $2.4 billion of the funds will be dedicated to environmental restoration preservation and conservation efforts throughout this region including barrier island creation right here in louisiana. an additional $350 million will aid in the development of state of the art oil spill prevention and response technologies, education research and training. and more than $1 billion will go to the united states coast guard trust fund to be available for clean up and coffer sation for those affected by oil spills in the gulf and throughout the united states. now as part of its guilty plea b.p. will retain a monitor for four years who will oversee
safety and maintenance in regard to drilling in the gulf as well as an independent auditor who will conduct annual reviews to enshurep compliance with the terms of this agreement. the company will hire an ethics monitor to improve it's its conduct and foster robust cooperation with the government. now there can be no question that this historic announcement is a critical step forward and under scores the justice determination to stand with gulf coast communities. in february the settlement tote ling $90 million related to the company's clean water act liability for the deep water horizon disaster. and approximately $45 million of this total will go directly to the gulf in the form of penalties. but our work is far from over.
in the trips that my colleagues and that i have made to the gulf coast since the spill, we have seen the damage to lives and businesses as well as to coastle areas and wetlands that this tragedy has inflicted. we understand the tremendous cost both economic and environmental that have been associated with this disaster and we've been inspired by the resilience splade by each gulf coast resident who has been affected. that's why i want to be absolutely clear that today's resolution does not mark the end of our efforts. in fact our criminal investigation remains ongoing and we will continue to follow all credible leads and pursue any charges that are warranted. in addition to the charges filed against b.p. a federal grand jury has also returned an indictment regarding the two
highest ranking b.p. supervisors who were on board on the day of the explosion with 23 criminal accounts, including eleven counts of manslaughter. eleven counts of involuntary manslaughter and alleged violations of the clean water act. the grand jury has also charged a former b.p. who served as a deputy incident commander and b.p.'s second highest ranking employee at has charged him from hiding information from congress and allegedly liing to law enforcement officials. these and other matters remain open including a separate civil action pending in federal court here in new orleans. we are looking forward to the trial which is scheduled to begin in february of next year which we intend to prove that b.p. was grossly neglect in
causing the oil spill. we are seeking civil penalties and a judgment that b.p. is liable for cost and natural resource damages that could amount to billions of dollars. but we have been unable to resolve the civil case. we remain as determined as ever to hold those responsibility accountable. in addition to my colleagues we are firmly committed to combating fraud by investigating and prosecuting those who attempt to gain profits at a terrible tragedy. i want to thank the leaders local officials and agency partners and gulf coast residents who have contributed to this work and have made this announcement possible. i'd like to turn this over to the assistant attorney general of the criminal division who will provide additional details about today's action.
>> thank you mr. attorney general. in april of 2010 the nation witnessed an unimaginable tragedy when the deep water horizon oil rig exploded in the gulf of mexico. eleven people aboard the rig died which and there began and oil began at that point pouring out of the well and on to the sea floor for months causing i mens damage to the gulf region and to our ecosystem. the communities here in new orleans and around the gulf have waited parktely for justice to be done. today their wait is over. the deep water ho rise zahn task fours filed a 14 count information and guilty plea agreement in new orleans federal court earlier today. it charges b.p. exploration and productioning with eleven counts of felony manslaughter, violations of environmental
laws including the clean water act and the migratory bird act and obstruction of congress. b.p. has agreed to plead guilty to each of those 14 counts and to pay the highest criminal fine in united states history. perhaps the greatest tragedy is that the deaths of the eleven men on board the deep water horizon could have been avoided t. explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from their culture of privileging profit over prudence and we allege that the senior members on board the rig negligently caused the explosion. we hope the acknowledgment of b.p. of its misconduct to plead guilty to eleven counts of felony manslaughter brings some
measure of justice to the family members of the people who died on the rig. as the oil spill continued b.p. made a tragic situation worse. they began misleading congress and the american people about how much oil was pouring out of the well. as b.p. now admits in responding to congress t company lied and with held documents in order to make it seem as though the oil was spilling, that less damage was being done to the environment than in fact was really occurring. acknowledging those lies, b.p. has agreed to plead guilty to felony obstruction of congress. make no mistake. while the company is guilty, individuals committed these crimes. and we have also unsealed today a 23 count indictment charging
b.p.'s two highest ranking supervisors aboard the deep water horizon with manslaughter and violation of the clean water act. the indictment charges the two b.p. well site leaders with negligent and gross negligence on 2010. the red flags indicating that the well was not secure both men failed to take appropriate action to prevent the blow out. a separate indictment was also unsealed today charging a former senior b.p. expect sive with obstruction of a investigation and making false statements to law enforcement officials. the indictment alleges that he on behalf of b.p. intentionally under estimated the amount of oil flowing from the well. he allegedly cherry picked
pages from documents, with held other documents al together and lied to congress and others to make this spill appear less catastrophic than it was. the attorney general stood near here with didn't officials when he first opened this criminal investigation into this terrible oil spill. and promised that we would thuroughly investigate and hold to account those responsibility for this horrible tragedy. today we've begun doing exactly that and tomorrow and in the months to come the deep water horizon task force will continue to tire leslie pursue justice in this matter. i'd like to personally thank task force director john beretta who has done an absolutely remarkable job in leading this investigation as well as the many fine prosecutors from the criminal
division, the environment and natural resources division, the u.s. attorney community and the many talented federal and state law enforcement agents who have worked so hard for so long to develop these cases. i would like to thank our colleagues at the securities and exchange commission for their important parallel investigation. with that i would like to turn it over now to my friend and colleague, the director of enforcement at the f.c.c. thank you. >> thank you. i'm director of enforcement at the f.c.c. today we are announcing that b.p. has agreed to pay more than a half billion dollars that it misled investigators about the rate of oil flowing during the deep water horizon disaster. the $525 million penalty represents the third largest
civil penalty aftersaysed and those fund will be used to compensate harmed investors for losses sustained from this fraud. b.p. misrepresented in f.c.c. file thags the oil spill flow rate was estimated to be up to 5,000 barrels of oil per day and that was the current estimate. in fact b.p. was in position of numerous analysis where 5,000 was at the lowest end of the range and those same analysis had upper ranges that were many mullment of 5,000 barrels. according to our complaint b.p. executives made public statements in which they stood behind the flow rate of 5,000 barrels despite an ever growing body of evidence that the estimate was unreasonably low. they dismissed higher estimates
reached by third party scientist and they realized it was nearly ten times the amount that b.p. estimated. the spill and concealment of the truth by b.p. caused devastating loss to the victims and environment and under mined the truth seeking function of congress. and by hiding the sevty of the spill b.p. caused another type of harm that is our focus. harm to the shareholders, to the investing public and market all of which are entitled to transparent and complete and accurate information. the eyes of the world were on b.p. in the spring and summer of 2010, the company had an opportunity to provide accurate disclosure about the facts needed by the public to make informed decision about investment and they chose to
mislead the public. that is not what we expect from public companies and their management and it is in times of congress the need for accurate information is most acute. i want to recognize the hard work of the f.c.c. staff that conducted this investigation including brian thomas and mat ralph. they are the kind of public serve vants that americans can be proud of. i want to thank the members of the deep water horizon task force. and i want to thank the leadership of the department of justice, the attorney general, associate attorney general for their leadership in this investigation. thank you. >> we'll be glad to respond to any questions you might have. [inaudible] >> let me answer that and i'll turn it to the associate attorney general who has been
responsible there. we have been in negotiations with b.p. we have not reached a number that i considered satisfactory in order to resolve those civil claims that we have. we have a trial set for february. we are planning to vigorously enforce our complaint at the. there is the possibility i suppose that further negotiations could result in a resolution. >> the only thing i would add is just that the attorney general has said repeatedly b.p. is exposed to billions of dollars for the harm that they have caused to gulf coast and the riegened and we are prepared to take that case to trial and vigorously pursue our civil case. >> is there a difference in the penalty per barrel spilled when
you go with a negligent stad or gross negligent standard? >> the distinction is applicable on one side and you have $1100 per barrel penalty. that gets up to $45e00 per barrel and the standard ot lou is the difference between violating a duty of care and wanton and recommendless conduct. >> what does this settlement mean for the families of those who died and for all of those who have been impacted by this oil spill? >> those lives are irreplaceable and there is nothing we can do to bring those loved ones back. on the other hand this is an indication and perhaps a
vindication that we have shown and the company has admitted that as a result of their actions people died there unnecessarily, manslaughter. manslaughter has been charged and manslaughter has been pled to. i would hope that would bring some degree of comfort by way of explanation as to why those brave people lost their lives. but at the end of the day, we can't bring them back and i think what we can certainly glean from what has happened here in terms of what we have charged and what the company pled to is those deaths were unnecessary. >> are any of those fines tax deductible? >> they are not. the attorney general was clear that nothing in the criminal settlement could be tax deductible nor an offset to any further civil resolution and that was a very explicit term of the agreement at the request
of the attorney general. >> mr. attorney general you said the criminal investigation is ongoing s. that possible that other b.p. employees or executives will be charged in the future. >> it's an ongoing investigation, that's exactly right. >> this doesn't clear b.p. employees? >> all i will say today is we've resolved it with the company and we've charged three individuals and we have an ongoing investigation. >> mr. holder, we keep hearing about the historic nature of these criminal penalties but we heard the same thing pretty much 7 years ago. it seems like environmental cases of this nature fall like nfl passing records. what deterrent do you expect this to have in the fine you announced today? >> you have to understand the totality of what we announced
today. there are penalties historic in nature. a company has pled guilty to criminal felony charges, manslaughter. individuals have been charged as well. everything that we are capable of doing in the criminal sphere we have done today. and this sun precedented both with regard to the amount of money, the fact that a company has been criminally charged and individuals have been charged as well. and as lanny brewer indicated the criminal investigation is ongoing. i hope this sends a clear message to those who would engage in this conduct that there will be a significant penalty to pay and individuals who are engaged in these kind of activities will be held responsible. this is not a corporate plea. individuals have been charged. >> mr. attorney general, do you have anything to say about a senior prosecutor resigning and another demoted because they were making comments about
ongoing cases in their offices on the internet. >> i am aware of those charges. i've seen the press reports but i don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment beyond that. >> are you confident that this will change that culture at b.p. that was present at the time of the explosion? >> i am optimistic that it will. i would hope that it will. there is a monitor in place to ensure that in fact that culture does change. i think that the company must be given some credit for the way in which they did respond to the spill in putting together that $20 billion fund and the amounts of money they have expended to fund restoration. so that is an indication that the contract mind set has changed but there are mechanisms in place to ensure that schange something that infuses, that changes a
culechure the corporation. >> could you address how this guilty plea today affects the ongoing civil litigation and the determination whether this is gross negligence. will this be a factor and have you discussed with b.p. whether this money they will be paying under this agreement actually comes out of the pool they are planning to make available? >> so two things. first of all, clearly the session of this plea can't did under stated and it will have an impact on the ongoing civil case we're pursuing. we have in our complaint alleged gloss negligence on the part of b.p. and we feel strongly that we'll be able to prove that case when it's up for trial in february. in terms of the impact on any potential civil recovery, that in part is a determination that a court will make but i think
something that the assistant attorney general said is very significant and that is that no part of the $4 billion dollars that b.p. has agreed to pay today will be used to offset any future civil recoverries that will go to restoration of the gulf coast. >> [inaudible] >> those investigations are ongoing so we aren't going to speak about that. >> can you give us a state by state breakdown of how much money goes to the state particularly alabama in this case? >> there is a chart here which kind of ill straits a lot of. this i think the first point and the attorney general made this point one reason this is such a historic result is the vast majority of this recovery is going back to the gulf coast, back to the gulf coast
states. as you all know the restore act does not govern criminal penalties so it doesn't govern how our penalties are aportioned in this case but we did look to the restore act as a rough guide to aportion what each state would receive under this criminal resolution. so roughly the amount of money is roughly a portioned equally amongst louisiana and the other states. have you significant additional amount of funds which will be devoted to restoration, barrier island creation and mississippi river diversion which you find in the louisiana master plan. >> the way in which this money has been aportioned is not the way we typically aportion money at the end of a case like this. we have tried to be sensitive to that which congress has
expressed in the passage of the restore act. i spoke earlier today to senator landrieu and congressman bonner and senator nelson as well to tell them about what we have done with regard to the distribution of the moneys in connection with this settlement today. >> if we could have three answers to the same question because the attorney general and the associate wanted to -- you should focus on it is the largest criminal resolution ever and it's his tor rick that all of the money will go to the benefit of the gulf states. that is very unusual for a criminal resolution. it's a criminal fine and punitive. but nonetheless it's going to the different states, particularly to louisiana. >> i want to ask you about how do we get here but in terms of the government what are you doing internally [inaudible]
>> so one of the important features of this resolution is about $350 million will be given to the national academy of sciences in an endowment. and the purpose of that is to improve our oil response, oil spill response, improve drilling safety measures. i think if there is anything we've learned from this great tragedy is we can improve the way we respond to oil spills and drilling safety in the gulf and throughout the country. and $350 million of this resolution goes just to that. >> can you address how the decision was made by the justice department to -- how and when it was made to inform president obama of the investigation of the c.i.a. director. >> with regard to that issue what we did was duct
investigation in the way we normally conduct a criminal investigation. we do so in a way that so they can be seen as being demun an impartial way which we follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the f.b.i. the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, had made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the hill. but as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we were very -- we felt e very secure in the knowledge that a national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of
that information with the white house or the hill. but when we got to a point in the investigation and it was very late in the investigation after a very critical interview occurred on the friday before we made that disclosure, when we got to that point when we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so. >> thank you. >> attorney genre rick holder speaking to report ners washington. another news conference coming up this afternoon. we'll tell you about this in just a moment. back here in washington the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. we expect them back later this afternoon where we expect them to vote on a rule about trade relations with russia. and on that news conference we're expecting to hear from
the ranking democrat on the natural resources committee. ed markey and the ranking member on the energy and commerce committee, they're going to be talking about the b.p. settlement at 3:00 eastern. we'll take you there live once that gets under way. in the meantime a conversation from this morning's washington journal on the healthcare law and health exchanges. >> is a health policy analyst at the kaiser family foundation. looming a deadline a decision about whether or not they want to set up their own health insurance exchanges. tell us about what the exchanges are and what is the deadline about? guest: hure. exchanges are new marketplaces where people can go to purchase insurance. and the idea is to create a more competitive marketplace for the individual and small
group insurance markets and to provide consumers with better information, to enable them to make informed choices about the health plans that they want to purchase. and then importantly in addition to creating this competitive marketplace, federal subsidies will be available tor individuals with incomes between 100 and 400% of the poverty level which translates to about $11,000 for an individual up to about $45,000 for an individual. to make that coverage more affordable so that people can actually afford to purchase the private insurance. host: this is part of the affordable care act. what was the idea behind it? what was the reason of it being included in the affordable care act? guest: the idea was to expand coverage to people who lack health insurance coverage
today. and it's one piece of the coverage pie, if you will. so one piece of it is a medicaid expansion for the lowest income individuals to provide them coverage. and then these exchanges the idea was they would be layered on top of the medicaid expansion and provide compling to moderate income individuals and provide them with private court and jury. and i think that's an important point because people will be going into these exchanges and selecting among private insurance plans. host: it's part of the conferredable care act and the exchange need to be fully operational by january 1 of 2014. that's the deadline that's been set. and as our guest mentioned it serves individuals on their own and small businesses that have up to 100 employees. and it's to give individuals choice on healthcare plans and
pricing. the health law has states feeling tense about the deadlines? guest: states have a deadline of tomorrow to determine whether they are going to run their own exchange. states have a number of options to them. they can run their own exchange andster all aspects of that exchange. they can partner with the federal government on a partnership exchange in which case the state and government will share responsibilities. and if they choose not to that i can thodse options the federal government are run a federal facilitated exchange in states. so the deadline for friday is for states to determine whether or not they want to run their own state based exchange. states also have until february 15 to decide whether or not they want to run a partnership
exchange. host: if you want to talk with us about health insurance exchanges democrats -- >> jennifer, how is it breaking down for states. which states are working on this process and which states are saying no, we dant want to set up our own exchange? guest: we have 13 states that have submitted letters to the department of health and human services indicating they will be running their own exchanges. and we have another four states that have indicated they will be doing a mart ner ship exchange. and we're simply waiting on the decisions from other states. so it's -- we're at this point waiting to learn what those state decisions will be.
host: some of the states that are declining to join are republican states, among them are texas, alaska, what is the reasoning behind what the governors are choosing to do? guest: i think there are a number of different reasons why states are choosing not to run exchanges. in some cases it has to do with ideology and opposition to the health reform law. in other cases it has to do with concerns over state resources and the ability of states to actually build these exchanges. this is a significant under taking for states and will require a fair number of staff resources and while there is federal money available to states that want to build their own exchanges there are still resources that the states will have to put to barry. and i think anotherish for
smaller states is a question of whether the exchange will in fact be viable so if you don't have enough people going into the exchange and purchasing coverage, it may make more sense for the states to allow the federal government to run that exchange because the federal government can share funding across many other states. so i think there are a variety of reasons. host: here is a map looking at state action toward creating health insurance exchanges. you can see the states in bark blue are establishing the exchanges. the ones in the tan color have decided not to create one. the states in white we are weight and light blue are studying the options. let's get to the phone on our democrats line. good morning. caller: as a family who has lost health benefits and is in the could be bra program and
i'm currently paying $1708 for a family of 5 which is unsustainable. so what are the levels if we don't get health insurance and don't find jobs with health insurance, what are those income levels. when you say 100% to 400% of the poverty level that would be eligible. what would a family making 60,000 or a woman making 30,000, would she be eligible for a subsidy and how does this affect the businesses? i understand a company with 50 employees and above. what about the small businesses that only employee ten or twenty people. and what is the fine for not having insurance? host: thank you for those questions. guest: you covered a wide range of issues. first to clarify on the subsidies because i think this is important.
policy folks tend to talk in terms of% of the federal poverty level but what does that mean in actual income terms which and subsidies will be available as i said for those making between 100% and 400% of poverty. so that translate, 100% of poverty is a little over $11,000 for an individual or $23,000 for a family of four which and the upper range translates to about $45,000 for an individual and a little over $93,000 for a 23578ly of four. the way these are structured is the depreatest benefit will go to those with lower incomes and the subsidies will phase out as income races. so for example at 100% of the poverty level an individual would be asked to pay 2% of their income toward the premium
for coverage. and at 400% of the poverty level, that subsidy or that requirement would increase to 9.5% of income. so that has to do with the subsidies. in terms of those mall bses, you had asked about that. the way the law is written, small employers with up to 100 employees are allowed to purchase coverage through the exchanges. however states have the option to limit employers to only those with 50 or fewer employees. and what we've seen is that many states have taken that option. so across the country for the most part employers with 50 or fewer employers will be eligible to purchase coverage through the exchanges. and i think you had also asked about the penalty for employers so i'll try and cover that as
well. and the penalty applies to employers with 50 or more employees that do not provide coverage or do not provide affordable coverage to their employees and who have at least one employee that goes into an exchange and reeves a federal subsidy which and in that case the penalties are $2,000 per full time employee. so significant penalties. host: general fer we'll go to bernie now in maryland who is a republican caller. caller: could you address specifically on a practical level how the new healthcare law will lesson or lecuse the overall cost of healthcare in guest: it's a good question. so there are a number of provisions in the law that are designed to address the cost issue, the issue of healthcare
cost. and they run the gam met but there are a few provisions that are designed to address increases in premiums that -- and those relate a little bit more directly to these health insurance exchanges and in those cases some of those provisions include a requirement on inshures to devote a certain% sadge of the healthcare dollars from enroll lease toward direct medical cost. this is troferede as the medical lost ratio. in the individual and small group markets insurers must spend 80% of those premium dollars on direct healthcare services and are only allowed to devote 20% to administrative cost and other aspects of running that health plan. in addition states have been granted new authority to review premium rate increases.
in fact, they are required to review rate increases that exceed 10% over the course of the year. they're not required to deny them but they simply have to collect information from insurers and have them justify those premyume increases. then there is a wide range of strategies that focus more on delivery system reforms and payment reforms more at the provider level that are designed to really target some of the cost drivers that are leading to increasing healthcare cost in this country. host: our guest started off by explaining to us tomorrow is a deed line for planning to operate an exchange, they have to submit their intention and give the federal government a sense of what they plan to do. we looked at this map of the states and where they sit. just talk to us about the
bottom line for a citizen of say colorado where the state is planning on setting up an exchange, what does it look like or feel like? is it online marketplace? how does it work? >> right. well these exchanges are designed to be online marketplaces so people will go to a website, they'll be able to put in some general information about themselves and their families and then they'll be provided with a range of plan options that they can choose from. and there will be a fair amount of standardized information available on all of those plans so they can compare those plans. they can then kind of whittle down their choices by making certain selections or filling in additional cite i can't. but in addition to it being an online marketplace, of course
not everybody has access to the internet, so there is a requirement that the exchange also operate a call center and be able to accept mailed in applications.-- the idea is to s to everyone who needs it in the way that they need it. in addition to having this new web site that will provide a great deal of information, exchanges are also required to provide direct consumer assistance. to provide people with assistance, however they neede it to -- over the phone, or in person -- to help them complete the applications and get enrolled in the coverage that best meets their needs. host: how about a state like louisiana, which has decided not to run its own state exchange. what would a citizen there do? guest: it will look similar.
in the case of colorado, the state is running the exchange. in the case of louisiana, the federal government is running the exchange. the look and feel and the options available to the residents of louisiana will be quite similar. the assistance that will be available to them will also be similar. the difference will be that the federal government will be making critical decisions about how the exchange operates in louisiana, well and colorado, it -- while in colorado, it will be the state making those decisions. host: arizona, a line for independents. caller: have a couple questions. the exchange echoes into place in january 2014. -- goes into place in january 2014. when would open enrollment began -- begin for that? where you get the subsidies
based on your income, for 2014, will they look back to 2013? or will it be the income in 2014? the final question i have is will the tax credits provided on -- be provided on a monthly basis so that you could keep your payment down each month, or you get the checks at the end of the year, and could you pay this through a -- automatic deduction from your checking account? guest: the first question on the deadlines and its operation, -- and dates of operation, your corrected the exchanges -- you are correct that the exchange's will go into effect and begin providing coverage of january 1, 2014.
the open enrollment period will begin october 1 of 2014. -- 2013. the idea is to give people time to go into the system, to learn the new system, select the health plan they want to enroll in, and then the idea is the switch will flip and coverage will begin to be provided on january 1, 2014. you asked questions about how the premium tax coverage will be -- tax credits will be made available to people and what income will determine the amount of subsidies. in terms of the income that will be used to determine what subsidies to poor eligible for, you are correct -- subsidies people are eligible for, you are correct to look back to the prior year's income. to project that forward to the coming year, anticipate what someone is expected to art over the course of the year to a
properly target -- to earn over the course of that year to properly target that amount. in terms of tax credits, they are typically provided at the end of the yearwhen an individual files their tax returns, you get a credit on the taxes that you all. for many people, -- that you owe. for many people, it is a -- health insurance is a significant cost. many people would not be able to afford coverage on their own without the immediate monthly assistance. it is structured to be provided on a monthly basis prospectively to allow people or to enable them to purchase coverage. once an individual is determined eligible for a tax credit, the amount of the credit they're eligible for will be provided to the health plan that they choose to enroll and. -- in. the individual will only be
responsible for their portion of the premium, and they will be able to pay that directly to the insurance company. whether someone can do and automatic deduction or prepay or have money go to a credit card, the hope is that will be available to consumers, but that remains to be seen how those payments will exactly flow. host: jennifer, tolbert, our caller asked about the timeline. "the washington post" says, at -- some are questioning the administration's ability to set up the state insurance exchanges along the tie line -- time line they are hoping to hit. with a growing number of state leaders saying they will leave it to the federal government to handle a crucial element of president obama's health care law, even supporters of the statutes are wondering if the
administration is up to the job. the administration has revealed that the complex computer systems needed to operate exchanges for states that do not want to run themselves -- run them themselves are supposed to be up and running by october 1, 2013. the date that you mentioned. what are some of the conce what are some of the concerns, how is this playing out? guest: we have not gotten any details yet as far as how long the federal government is, so that creates certain uncertainty as to whether or not the federal government will be ready to deploy these exchanges across possibly more than half the states. we know that they're working on it. they're making critical decisions. they have awarded contracts to vendors to help them build key
components of the exchanges. i am hopeful that we will begin to get some more information from the federal government as to the details of the exchanges and where they are in the process. in speaking to federal officials, they say they will be ready and they will be ready for open enrollment in october of 2014. host: democratic caller in san leandro, california. caller: have a concern. i am retired. -- i have a concern. i am retired. i also carry my employer's portion of the plan, which is $310 a month, which is included in the kaiser advantage plan, i am concerned that the advantage plan may be taken away. i have not heard what it is going to be replaced with.
host: are you talking about your medicare? caller: medicare is vintage. guest: -- medicare advantage. guest: this relates to another piece of the law. which did reduce payments to medicare advantaged plans. these are private plans that offer coverage to the medicare program -- through the medicare program. -- whether or not those plans remain available to consumers, i think it is going to be a decision that will be up to those private plans. in this case, the kaiser plan you are enrolled with. there is no indication that those plans are going to drop coverage or that there will be significant plans leaving the editor of beverage market. -- medicare advantage market. would have to see how all of this evolves. -- we would have to see how all of this evolves.
i do not think that consumers -- medicare advantage enrolees -- enrollees should be particularly concerned at this point. any directions should be -- any questions should be directed -- directed to the medicare advantage plans. host: how will the exchange coverage applied to the federal government versus state exchanges in case you move? explained u.s. -- explain to -- people who are in transit, how can they take advantage of this, but the way that he phrases it, exchange coverage. explain to us what the purpose of the exchange is in terms of what it will provide. are you using it as a marketplace, or is the exchange itself providing coverage? guest: that is a good question. the exchange is the marketplace. it is a mechanism through which people can purchase private coverage from a private
insurance plan. it is the mechanism for providing coverage. you're not purchasing coverage from the exchange. host: or from the state or from the federal government. guest: your purchasing coverage from an -- you are purchasing cards from an -- coverage from an insurer through the exchange. i think that is an important aspect is worth clarifying. in terms of the question -- if you move from one state to another, you will have to purchase coverage in the state in which you are a resident. >> you can watch all of this in our video library at c-span.org. are going to take you now to representatives ed markey and henry waxman. >> today, bp reached an
agreement with the justice department to resolve all criminal claims against it by the united states government regarding the bp deepwater horizon disaster and to pay $4 billion in criminal penalties for these very serious violations of law. bp has pled guilty to 11 felony counts related to the tragic death of 11 men who were working on the deepwater horizon well -- rig. the company also has pled guilty to violations of the clean water act and the migratory bird treaty act. finally, bp has pled guilty to obstruction of congress for lying to me, for line to henry waxman and the other members of congress about the amount of oil that was flowing out of the well. bp lied to me. they lied to the people of the gulf.
they lied to their shareholders. they lied to all americans. there should be no more argument. bp is guilty of negligence and grossly negligent conduct that resulted in the 11 deaths. bp is guilty of action that harmed the water and wildlife of the gulf of mexico. bp is guilty of lying to the congress about what they had done and what they knew. in today's plea agreement, bp has admitted that former bp executive david rainey lied to me and to the other members of the house energy and commerce committee subcommittee on energy and environment. he's testified may 4, 2010, at a closed-door said giving the briefing on the bp spill. he was apparently responsible
for other information subsequently provided to the subcommittee about the size of the spill. according to the plea agreement, and i quote, "as part of this plea agreement, bp has admitted that, throughout rainey,k it withheld documents and provided false and misleading information in response to the united states house of representatives request for full rate information. among other things, bp admitted that he manipulated internal estimates to understate the amount of oil flowing from the well and withheld data that contradicted bp's public estimate of 5,000 barrels per day. bp has also admitted that, at the same time rainey was preparing his manipulated estimates, vp's internal engineering response teams were internalbp's
engineering response teams were using methods that generated significantly higher estimates. the flow rate technical group later concluded that more than 60,000 barrels per day were leaking into the gulf during the relevant time, contrary to bp's representations' to congress." at the time that bp was providing congress with a lowball estimate that the flow rate was 5,000 barrels per day, the company apparently had internal information that contradicted that estimate. they knew it could be many multiples greater than that. it turned out to be wrong by at least a factor of 10. these higher estimates were not provided to the congress, nor did bp ever correct the misleading information that they
withheld from the subcommittee. in the course of their investigation into bp's misdeeds, the fbi and the justice department uncovered internal documents that apparently made it clear that mr. rainey and his colleagues knew that the likely flow rate was significantly higher than what congress had been told. today, i am making public a copy of the documents which i provided to the justice department in response to their request for information regarding our bp investigation. at the time that the disaster was occurring, i said that i thought that bp was either lying about the flow rate or that they were incompetent. today, we have confirmation that bp was both incompetent and that it was lying to the congress.
today, the company is taking the first step towards making restitution for its misdeeds by pleading guilty to its criminal misconduct regarding the deepwater horizon disaster. i want to commend the attorney general holder and the fbi for their excellent work in bringing the u.s. government's criminal case to a successful resolution. i would urge bp to expeditiously resolve the remaining civil complaints against it, including dropping their misguided attempt to contest the amount of oil that they are responsible for spilling into the gulf of mexico. regarding the allocation of the penalties, the portion of today's settlement directing significant funding for preservation and conservation of natural resources along the gulf coast is a significant step
forward in repairing the unprecedented environmental harm caused by the bp spill. revenue from future civil penalties will go to the gulf states directly. dedicating these criminal penalties to conservation fishts by the nonprofit and wildlife foundation in scientific research conducted by the national academy of sciences -- and scientific research conducted by the national academy of sciences is a critical step in healing our gulf coast. 11 americans died, then bp lied, then they tried to cover it up. they deserve this record picking penalty. let me turn -- record-breaking penalty. let me turn and recognize chairman waxman. >> thank you, ed markey. this justice department announcement today is the largest criminal resolution in the u.s. history, against bp for
its role in the 20-2010 deepwater horizon explosion and the subsequent bill -- for its role in the 2010 deepwater horizon explosion and the subsequent spill. bp pled guilty to 11 counts of culinary -- felony manslaughter, one count of obstruction -- 11 felony manslaughter counts, one count of obstruction of congress, which we take very seriously as members of congress. violations of the clean water act, the migratory bird treaty act -- the company will pay $4 billion in fines and penalties. in addition to bp's supervisors on board the deepwater horizon the day of the explosion, they were stars with 11 felony counts of -- they were charged with 11
counts of sseamen's -- seamen's manslaughter and other charges. our committee worked tirelessly to uncover the truth behind what happened at the deepwater horizon the night of april 20, 2010. our investigation revealed that bp and other companies involved in drilling the macondo well made a series of key decisions that led to this horrible incident. we learned that bp made choices about how to drill and finished well -- and finish the well that significantly increased the chances of a block. these decisions were made to save money and time with little regard to safety. the company put profits ahead of safety. the results were catastrophic. the blowout was preventable. it happened because bp made a series of reckless decisions.
now, at least there is a measure of accountability. the department of justice has acted aggressively against bp. it is holding the company and key individuals criminally responsible. it is important to remember that this settlement does not and the process -- does not end the process. in february, 2013, a jury will determine the civil penalties that bp will face. i am hopeful that the other companies who played a role in this disaster, such as transocean and halliburton, will also face appropriate penalties for their actions. caused the death of 11 men, caused one of the largest ecological disasters our country has ever faced. we will have the decision about the civil penalties, but there will be further actions of
criminal nature against some of the individuals who have been cited in the information filed by the justice department. we have not yet recovered from this disaster. the families of those who lost their loved ones will never recover. but this is an important step in making sure that bp is held the responsible -- held responsible for its action. i want to commend the work of the chairman. he aggressively pursued the statements that were made. when he heard that the amount that they were talking about discharging into the gulf was as slow as it was being presented, he knew right away that it was not accurate. he was able to give the justice department documents that led them to the same conclusion.
we need to hold wrongdoers accountable. i am pleased that the justice department -- and i commend the attorney general -- are taking the action to hold dp criminally accountable. they are yet to be held -- hold bp criminally accountable. they are yet to be held civilly accountable. and the individuals who gave ms. information to congress or were on board the ship on the night -- gave mis information to congress or were on board the ship on the night of the explosion -- they will have to answer to charges as well. >> you seemed to take this very personally, the fact they were lied to -- the fact you were lied to. do you? >> i was the subcommittee chairman. henry was the chairman of the
whole committee. we had an emergency briefing on may 4, asking bp to give us accurate information with regard to the flow rate into the gulf. the answer to that question, to a very large extent, determined what the response would be on an emergency basis, to deal with the impact of the spill in the gulf of mexico, the harm that it would do to the ocean, the harm that it would do to see life, the harm -- to sea life, the harm that it would do to all those employed in the gulf. it is now clear that bp was lying to congress. they were deliberately lowballing the number, because liability is directly tied to the number of barrels that flow into the ocean. if they are guilty of ordinary negligence, they would be charged with $1,100 per barrel.
at 5,000 barrels per day, that is a far smaller fine and 50,000 or 60,000 barrels project -- smaller fine than 50,000 barrels or 60,000 barrels per day. the range of the fine can number from $5 billion to $21 billion. the motive for the law is very clear -- for the lie is very clear, to minimize the overall impact on bp and the other companies in terms of their liability, if in fact that number was the higher number, which it turns out to have been. i personally take it as an insult to congress, but, more importantly, to the american people, because that is who we represent on a daily basis. we are tasked with getting the answers for the american people. when you are lying to congress,
when you are lying to the energy and commerce committee, you are actually lying to all of those people who are now going to bear the pain of the harm which is being done in the gold state region -- the gulf state region. >> thinking back to the time, did you know at the time -- did you have suspicions at the time that lies were being told? >> yes. we had experts who were telling us that they felt that the flow rate was much higher. we had experts who arrived who said that, if they could gain access to this billc -- to the spill cam, they would be able to determine how large the flow rate was. and determine the flow rate being more -- flow rate by being
given more access to all of the different angles that the camera made it possible to observe the spill. once that happened, the experts around the country who lack access to that information dramatically -- who had access to that information dramatically increased the damage they thought was being done. it was a exponentially-higher spill rate then they had represented to us on may 4, that they had represented initially in the first week after the spill, and which they had been representing subsequently after the may 4 hearing. the justice department has now obtained documents with the may 4 hearing and subsequently shows that they knew the number was much higher. >> there was a very specific charge of obstruction of congress.
congressman markey is talking about that particular obstruction of congress. it went beyond that. i sent a letter on june 14 to tony hayward, the chief executive officer of bp, outlining many details that we were able to discern from the documents that were given to our committee of short cuts that they took, of risks that they put in place for a possible blow out, things they should have known to do in a better way. we set that out as well. part of the criminality of bp's actions was not just misleading congress, it was not doing the things they could have done it to avoid the blackout that killed 11 people. that's why the of the individuals on board that night -- two of the individuals on board that night are being held
with criminal liability personally. that case is not settled. what is being settled here is the payment of a settlement for the criminal liability of bp as a corporation, which includes this obstruction of congress. the essential point is that they are being held accountable. we feel strongly, when we do an investigation, that people be required to tell us the truth. they had a lot of reasons, as ed markey pointed out, to lie. it was in their economic interests july. it was not only misleading congress. it was misleading investors who would buy or sell the stock, who were being misled as to the consequences and the costs that are being imposed by the amount of this bill itself -- of the spill itself. they acted in an irresponsible, reckless way. bp caused a tremendous disaster that cost the lives of 11 people and was probably the
largest illegal logging -- ecological disaster we have seen in the united states caused by any one corporation. >> how rare is it for someone to be charged with obstruction of congress? how often has that happened in your experience? >> it happens on occasion. it is also rare to have a blowout that could have been prevented happening as it did in the gulf. you have to look at all of this in its entirety, and bp is being held accountable for what they did and did not do, for the recklessness by which they operated, and then their attempt to cover it up in their testimony before the congress of the united states in order to mislead investors and members of congress and the american people. >> so, if, again, if we had known from the beginning that it
was not 5,000 barrels but 50,000 barrels or 60,000 barrels, that would have affected the amount of dispersants which was needed in order to break up the oil spill. it would have affected the amount of booms and skimmers that were needed in order to collect the oil. it would have affected how we >> it would have affected how we use the top hat and detailed mechanisms that they had put in place and nationally in order to try to stop the spill. we would have understood the futility of the initial actions instituted something that would have been much more dramatic. it delayed a response, which was put in place in order to minimize the damage to the economy and the citizens of the
gulf of mexico. something as serious as this -- it is imperative that criminal action be taken. >> the size of the fine given bp's size -- >> it is the largest find in history. it is not the completion of the case because the civil fine could go as high as $21 billion. i am satisfied with the justice department's action and i am also happy that they are going
to take this civil action all the way to court. i would hope at the end of this number would be so large that it would serve as a significant deterrent to any other oil company ever again engaging in this level of reckless behavior. >> the opportunity for potentially at the settlement -- the government could reach a settlement that could undermine -- >> i am sure he will use good judgment that the size of the settlement is appropriate. i have no criticism for him and how he is conducting his actions. he has not reached a settlement on at his other matters, but he
has reached a settlement on this part, which involves critical matters. i will not second-guess what he might do, but he is sending the matter the court. -- to court. >> thank you, all. >> talking about the justice department's settlement with bp over the 2010 gulf oil spill. a $4.5 billion and criminal indictments. we spoke with the attorney general and other test
department officials. you will find that end -- and this video at c-span out work. -- c-span.org. the house will vote on a bill that will normalize trade relations with russia. it will allow for an hour and a half of debate. in the meantime, nancy pelosi, who spoke to reporters today, about friday's white house meeting on schedule tax increases, such as the fiscal cliff. this is about 25 minutes. >>good afternoon. thank you for accommodating our schedule. we have growing concerns about the escalating violence in israel and in the gaza strip.
the president has stated that he has spoken with prime minister netanyahu and it expressed what we all believe that israel has the right to defend itself as a nation. we are also concerned about any civilian deaths. be more of those that -- we mourn those that and we want hamas not to put people in harm's way so we can avoid the loss of civilian life. we will continue to monitor that situation. last week, we had an election.
the american people spoke clearly and that is for us to reach an agreement to grow jobs, grow our economy, and reduce our deficit. now we have an opportunity. this is opportunity time for us and the american people to demonstrate to all americans that we are here to get the job done. that starts with the effort to ensure economic security for the middle-class, restore certainty for our small businesses, and spur growth for our economy as we reduce the deficit. tomorrow, as the bipartisan congress comes to the table at the white house, we must act in a responsible way to address our fiscal challenge. president obama has called for a balanced approach and house
democrats support that and have long supported a grand bargain. as we move forward, democrats continue to back an agreement that is grand in scope, by increasing revenues by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share and having responsible cuts. this will create jobs, injecting demanded in our market, and bringing in more revenue. and the approach must take into account the $1.5 trillion amount in cuts already made by the budget control act. while pursuing a path that appalls our priority and helps the middle class. they are prepared to work in good faith on the fiscal issues facing our country by calling up a vote to extend the middle income tax cuts now.
a tax cut that will give 98% of americans and 97% of small- business owners more certainty heading into the holiday season. the senate has already passed this legislation, house democrats are ready to vote, and we must not hold middle-class tax cuts hostage for tax cuts to the wealthy americans or drastic cuts that threaten our economy. we can take this step now and have it on his desk by next week. we will try to reach an agreement -- the president said we heard the voices of the american people and heard from ceos and business leaders and those representing a working families calling for both parties to stand down and make necessary changes.
we stand ready to answer the call the president said of both parties can work together in a balanced way and there is only 1 way to solve these challenges and that is to do it together. we will work with the president and with our colleagues in the senate and house and across the aisle. one and two, you decide. [laughter] >>in 1995, there was an idea of what the deficit reduction should do. a five-year plan and a 10 year plan. this seems to be a definite goal. what seems to be lacking is a common deficit goal. is there a goal that you have?
what is your goal going in? >> what we should do when we go in tomorrow and -- let us stipulate to a set of numbers, whether the goal is -- whether the ratio of debt to gdp -- something we should not go to that place, but let's at least have markers that we agree on so that the goal posts are not moved. i am not here to say what that is. we want to go to that table and determined that framework. >> obama said that he is open
for new ideas. do you carry that same position as the president? >> we are open to a grand bargain. however we get to the place where we can have significant deficit reduction -- the president campaigned on the 250 and the american people support that. i think that as were a good deal of leverage is in these negotiations. i just want something that is fair and will work. then, but as see what makes up the grand bargain. >> are you at gnostic about 39.6 -- is it more about a large
enough revenue marker, whether it is an income tax rate -- or is it important to you that the clinton era tax rates return to what it was on the income side. >> i would like that to happen. but you would not be surprised that the best of items on our caucus is ways to increase revenues that are out there. i will not share with them, but we just finished a caucus within the hour. i will reduce some of the suggestions that they have made. i will not say yes or no to any of that, but what we want is the top 2% to pay their share.
they have said that tax cuts at the high end it did not produce jobs. that is the report back the republicans wanted to snuff out. what produces growth? let us put that on the table. it is on that to be productive to create jobs and produce growth that will in turn produce more revenue because more people are working as a make these cuts and stand ready to make them and have additional revenue by having something more similar to the clinton rates. this should not be hard. nothing much has changed since last year when we were having this discussion the president was clear about the 250 and above.
americans support that. this should not be hard. what is hard is that if you come to the table saying i am coming here to undermine the republican role and what my goal is to create growth and reduced the deficit, but my goal is to undermine the public role and honoring our responsibilities to the american people, whether it is in response to a natural disaster, in response to a dip in the economy where unemployment insurance is necessary. a but it should be a statement of the national value. -- a budget should be a statement of the national value. we all come to the table hoping to influence this decision and i do not know -- without seeing a
context in which it is. wealthier people paying their fair share, the president has been very clear about that. >> the republicans have talked about adding new revenue. if the democrats are willing to accept structural fixes to medicare and medicaid. what changes did you excepted those to satisfy that end of the bargain? >> reducing benefits to our middle-class? what do we mean by cuts? what do they mean by structural changes? why are we rebating revenue to medicare.
those issues, social security, medicare and medicaid, they should begin their own realm. whenever adjustments should be made in social security should be there to strengthen social security. not to subsidize a tax cut for the wealthiest people in america. a the same thing with medicaid and medicare. we support a grand bargain. senator reid and others have spoken out that we are not going to touch any of the entitlements, so that gives you some indication of the likelihood of something like that happening. let as go to the table and see, unless someone wants to define what you are asking me or what they are saying. i do not know what they mean by structural. >> in the hours leading up to
lawmakersuncement -- and cursed a campaign to say -- they offer concern about whether -- >> that was yesterday. >> you think you'd have to address the deficit within your own caucus? >> no. but as keep it brief. -- let as keep it brief. >> the grand bargain is barely a ploy to undermine social security and medicaid. and no deal is better than a band up. it but the grand bargain in your opinion includes dealing with the debt ceiling which is also looming and -- the caucus in
the house has more swing in deciding to raise the debt ceiling that in the fiscal cliff. >> first of all, fair and wor kable balance. that is what we are talking about. we have to go to a determination to reach an agreement. that is very important. i would hope that what is agreed upon with this would be something that we can support. that does not mean we say that we are a legislator of on that.
you have a majority in the senate of democrats and in the house at republicans. the white house is formidable in all of this because they have leadership and aspirations of the american people supporting the president. but as things in a little more optimistic way about -- let us think in a little more optimistic way -- if you are progressive as i am, you do not see any value in a big budget deficit. the interest on the debt alone is robbed from vestments that could be made. we all know we have to reduce the deficit. 1 of the ways we got here where tax cuts for the wealthy that did not produce jobs. but as that continues on a path that got us into this fix in the first place. let us go to the table of good
faith where we want something to happen. but if nothing happens, the consequences could be great. we have faith -- if we all go to the table, budget agreements have been made over and over. there is no reason we should not have one now, unless there is an ideology on the part of the people with kids to undermine any of the good will. >> two bargains are one bargain? one the debt ceiling? >> i would hope not. i am about the element
amendment. i am with the constitution about united states permi. during the past week, the san francisco giants won the world series in a suite. i still have not -- got the p ony dogs. i am waiting on the wings for my bet. -- winnings for my bet. this is important and i said this to a group of bipartisan members. when we had our celebration, a
million people came. they gathered in san francisco. it was beautiful. the ceo of the giants, past owners, present owners, our mayor, but what was moving were the players. romo had on a t-shirt that said "i just look illegal." vogelsong, he said something so beautiful. he said " everyone says the sampras's the giants are a diverse group. but the reason that we went is we play as a team. we care about the name on the front rather than the name on
the back. " that was such a beautiful thing. on the front of robert uniforms, it is team usa. we have to work together. we have to work together to continue and to avail. even when pressed bush was president, we worked with them. this is a new phenomenon that a party which say -- would say this never worked for years. hopefully with this election and there are fresh start as a freshman class in a bipartisan way, they can find a way it to agree. it is always a kaleidoscope. the could be an agreement on one
side or the other, whether a regional or what ever, it is always about our constitution, conscience, and constituents. the will of the caucus is behind the first 3 seeds that i mentioned. we are looking forward to this new class that i am proud of. the majority of women and minorities -- there is diversity of opinion in our caucus as well, and that is to be respected and as you probably also know, everyone in that caucus or ethnicity believe that each of us is stronger because we have a mix at the table. in san francisco, i always say the beauty is in the next. that is where the creative thinking is. we are very proud and we all want to be on the same team usa.
maybe later, i will show you. the reason i brought this ball because my son caught a foul ball from scutaro. i said i will get it signed, and he signed it, but also willie mays was there, mcauvey was there, sandoval, gaylord perry, the list goes on and on. my husband buys this season ticket so -- [laughter] every time i take it to show to someone, he makes that point. in any event, there are many names you would recognize. i will put it on loan from my
husband it because -- when we opened the new stadium in san francisco, bobby thompson came hereat day and of course we are celebrating the world series. the ball i got that they from bobby thompson he wrote, "bobby thompson, shot heard round the world." jaun marchel -- just found his name. they may have to send them by overnight mail. assets as opposed to regular mail?
-- as opposed to regular mail? >> melky cabrera didn't sign that did he? [laughter] >> being true, he actually presided over the senate and nowadays the vice president does not bother with that of buses vote is needed. he was there every day. he said that was my job. it was a transition of zero knowledge. that does not happen anymore. he got a phone call from the white house, get to the phone right away, picked up the
phone, and at the other and he said the market to the white house as soon as you can. he grabbed his hat and dashed out and he had a car. he went to the white house and was taken upstairs to the second floor, which is the family floor. he was met by eleanor roosevelt and he looked up and she said, harry, the president is dead. he was in total shock and said, "what can i do for you." she said, ". , what can we do for you? you are in trouble now." >> we look at the lack of harry truman on c-span q and a. c-span and vice middle and high
school students to send a message to the press through a short video. what is the most important issue he should consider for 2013 for a chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. it is open for students' grades 6-12 and it doesn't -- and the deadline is january 18. corporals, go online to studentcam.org. >> the house will be gaveling back in to vote on the rule that would normalize trade relations with russia. we will have live coverage when they gavel back in. you can follow debate on cspan 2. a group of conservative republicans talking about the lame duck agenda and the agenda ahead for the budget and congress. >> i appreciate my colleagues
joining me today. this is being strained live on the internet and this is completely unscripted. it is open to any and all questions and i look forward to getting started. >> we will turn it right over for questions. >> [inaudible] >> in during the election and for many years, the republicans have been pretty clear. we think we have a spending and a revenue problem in washington, d.c. the president has made a
proposal that has failed to make any votes in the house and senate. there is the idea that we don't need a tax increase to solve our spending problems. that is my first principle. we will move from there. >> if you want to know the alpha and omega, you need to know 3 numbers,. 39% is the increased of inflation of the population over the last 10 years. 13% is the increase in revenue. revenue pretty close to keeping up with inflation. the problem is the third number, 82. that is the increase on spending in the same time.
that will throw us into a sovereign debt crisis. >> the question i have been asking for the last year is we keep hearing from the president and from the democrats that they want a balanced approach when i hear a balanced approach, i still have not seen a plan. i have no idea where the president plans to cut spending or where the democrats plan to cut spending. if you look at what the democrats are seeing in the senate, they're saying that we don't need to reform medicare. these are not the issues that are facing that we need to solve. i think that it is your job as reporters to ask the democrats where are you willing to spend? i remember during the debate, i remember when the presidential
candidates, it was the primary. the old republican primary candidates asked are you willing to support 81021 deal. no one raised their hands. i would have raised my hand. as a conservative, i would have raised my hand. if this $10 in spending cuts happen to today, not 10 years from now. if the $10 in spending cuts are real spending and not projected cuts in growth. we would have been able to show the american people that the democrats are playing a canard on the american people. they're not willing to cut any spending at all. i think we need to start shifting our discussion about that. the media did a great job asking mitt romney for his plan was. i did not see people asking the
president where his plan was. if the president came to me with a 10-1 deal where he will cut $10 in spending in spending today to cut $1 in taxes, i would probably take that deal. they don't want to cut a single time in government spending. >> by late summer, and they are the investigation. >> eric holder should have resigned a long time ago. once again, it shows the incompetence or the complete neglect in eric holder's administration.
i don't know what his duty is to tell the president what he knows but he has a constitutional duty to tell the house committee what he knows about issues like this. the key to this will be the chairman of the intelligence committee in the senate. i know the media has done a good job of ignoring every question we have asked about eric holder but when she started asking questions, we will get to the bottom. cox why did you lose -- >> why did you lose seats in the
house and in the senate? >> can you identify yourself? >> jonathan weizmann with the new york times. >> many people are thinking about that but i don't think that we lost by being too conservative and articulating our principles to clearly, i think it was the opposite. the election was a wave election, a tremendous response. the same folks that propelled the single largest republican majority in decades, i don't think they turned on a dime and said, i don't want to cut spending. what we need to do is do a better job of articulating conservative principles to all kinds of folks, not just those folks that read the "wall street journal." millions of americans have not
heard what we believe then and the value of individual opportunity and the value of limited government. i don't think that our candidate is a very good job of articulating that. >> it was an election that produced the second largest house majority since world war ii. according to the exit polls, american people agreed with the positions of the republican party and disagreed with the positions of the democratic party. we saw a poll published today noting that obamacare is less popular than at any time since the polling began. we do know that for these next four years, the american people are about to get a graduate lesson in -- at the end of that course, they will be a lot more sad and a lot
more wise. we need to wipe our noses, pull up our socks, and get back in the game. >> a lot of commentators have commented on this. i don't know why i am having any original bonds. the exit polls of the election indicate that republicans won the who shares your values question but lost on the who cares about people like you question. that is the key to this election. the majority of the american people agree with our conservative principles. we are the better party to bring this nation forward. they agreed that mitt romney had a better economic plan than barack obama. we have done a terrible job as a party of letting the american people now that we care about them, we are not the party of
big business, we are the party of average individuals. we are death, not the party of big government. we are the party of small business. i did not become a republican because i want to help big businesses remain strong. big businesses can take care of themselves. it is hispanic, african- american, women who would be losing jobs. we need to get back to the basics of why we are republicans and let the american people know that we care about them and we welcome them in your party and we want you to help build this nation.
>> what congress should do regarding the outcome of this. there is no change in the status. do you think that -- >> it is something that we're going to have to look at. i was born and raised in puerto rico. the question is that i don't really understand the results in puerto rico. the state had party lost. so, i am trying to understand the results.
-- is a terrific friend of mine. he was able to lose when the status question, those are the things that you will have to study. >> the speaker has talked about wanting to negotiate a deal. this is a new revenue. >> i don't know if you were here. i have not heard what the democrats are willing to cut. they have said they're not willing to cut anything. the president had a meeting with the labor unions, with all the
different liberal groups and everyone of those groups told the president that he should not deliver anything on reforms of our entitlement systems but he should ensure that he delivers a tax increase. i don't think they're open- minded in any way. we need to start negotiating with ourselves and wait for the democrats to actually give us an offer that is a real serious author. he won the presidency. "i believe that revenue is an important part of the equation but there is a healthy and an unhealthy way to raise revenue. the i healthy way to raise revenue is to increase taxes in a brittle economy that is already buckling under the
burden of government tax and regulation policies. the healthy way of generating revenues is to reform this tax structure to assure that the plane field is leveled and that the tax system is competitive. that is the only genuine way of increasing revenue and the only healthy way of doing so. by raising taxes in a brittle economy such as this, you can often produce less total revenue of the damage that has been done to the economy. i can give you plenty of examples where increases in tax rates in california have produced decreases in tax revenues. >> michigan had the same experience.
they raise their rates and it thought they would get an increase in revenue somebody asked, you ask the question of why we lost. the unemployment rate went up. when we have folbaum in the white house, and democratic control in the house and senate, the unemployment remained high. as soon as the house was taken over by the republicans, the unemployment rate went down. we made a mistake of not intimating to the american people that the economy was improving. it could be better if we have complete control congress and complete control of the white house. if you look at every single
state or just about every state where a republican governor is working, the economy is actually improving in the states. the economy is doing better in the states because they have conservative policies being enacted. we were able to stop the obama agenda for two years. you saw the drop in the unemployment rate of 2%. i think we should have made a more robust argument to say that our policies are working and their policies did not work. >> washington creates the crisis and then tries to take credit for solving it. this is a crisis that we credit with legislation that was past year. second, this is right on target. is that the house negotiating with itself, show us what your plan is to deal with the
sequester and to deal with the tax increases that are coming. to the revenue side, i think that tom is right on target. if this is revenue that results from a growing economy, that is what we need. the real solution is the debt crisis and the fact we don't have growth. if it is long-term the results, that is fine. if it is revenue that comes to sheer and increases the tax burden, i think that is a real problem. see is not something you'll a lot of us support. >> continuing on the subject of revenue, you suggested that we talked to democrats about the spending size. tomorrow, i will do exactly that. president obama was elected, he
wanted a balanced approach and the wealthy to pay their fair share. he won by an electoral margin well in excess of a hundred. do not interpret that as a mandate at the present to discuss mandate increases? >> i do not consider 51% margin of victory much of a mandate. this is not a mandate. the mandate shows 66% of american devoted said that we don't want to raise taxes to reduce our deficit. this president's had two years in which to raise taxes on everybody he wanted to, he had a majority. he did do it. he has trotted out the same thing today in the proposal. i think it is time for this president to get serious.
he presided over the worst economic recovery since the great depression. we have a fiscal cliff. even worse, we have a debt ceiling. this is the time to stepped-up. time to stepped up. where have you been? welcome to four years of failed economic policies. that is what to look forward to come to see if you present anything different. >> everyone of us would not be here if we did not have a clear mandate from our constituents to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that are question a life of the american economy. -- that are crushing the life of the american economy. he has a mandate to talk about it and we have a mandate to fight it. that is what the american people
elected us to do. we will continue to fight it and we will fight any member of our conference that the size that this is a good time to raise taxes. if we can talk about revenue, ways to get the economy growing, ways to get the gdp hire, we can do all of those things and we will do that through tax reform, regulatory reform. >> the conference has been put to -- that tom price would be the more conservative candidate. is that how you see it? are you supporting him? >> i am supporting tom price. >> i will not say publicly who i support. i will keep my vote secret. >> i am supporting tom price.
>> explain you're thinking, why you are supporting him. >> tom price was the chairman before i got the privilege of chairing the same group. he is a friend. he is a friend and that is why elements supported him -- that is why i am supporting him. >> are any of you opened to closing loopholes and getting rid of some tax breaks? if so, what kind of tax breaks. >> that is the irony of the debate, i always used this example. it is unfair that you have a company like ge getting away with making billions of profit
the irony of this entire debate is that if you do tax reform, the wealthy will pay more. they're not pay more because we are raising their rates, they are paying more because there are some of the sacred the polls that they have hired lobbyist and accountants and lawyers to come to washington, d.c. to do. we will get rid of those loopholes. hopefully, we can lower their rates on the american people. i think that every conservative is ok with lows in the polls -- laureen loopholes. >> i have been doing this for a month out and about. how many of you think we need a tax cut? every single hand in the room will go up. it is not just small business owners, it is everyone. any tax code that permits on the
personal side, almost half of the population not to participate in the main taxes broken. if it is broken and stupid, you're willing to start over. certainly, we need reform. the speakers have been clear on this. >> you are talking about a two- step process. the speaker's call this a down payment or a bridge. then a bigger agreement next year. can you accept new revenue in the first part?
yeutter talking about tax reform that would not happen for a year. would you accept up front new revenue? as part of a deal. "i would agree to revenues in the second steps. i will not agree to them in the first that. as far as i recall, not a single people lost person voted for the debt limit increase. -- as i recall, not a single person voted for the debt limit increase. there were cuts coming from the military and from payments to providers. those are a key constituencies that tend to be more republican than democrat. i thought it was a mistake for us to do it. now, i will not increase taxes on the american people so that we can get out of a deal that i did not even vote for.
>> we have heard this. you cannot do these and say, raise taxes now, we promise to cut later. that will not fly. certainly not that plan you have outlined. second, remember where we are at. 15 months ago, we passed the debt ceiling increase. now, it is time to do the second debt ceiling increase. we're just a couple of months from having to do this and we have yet to any promise cuts from the 115 months ago. where are those? increase the debt ceiling, we promised to get to the cuts. the american people say, are you serious? i think that is problematic. >> let's look at what the big picture is. i remember the president looking us in the eye, february 10th, 2009, when he was selling his economic stimulus plan and he
said the fdr new deal work and he should have spent more money. it seemed that he was looking me right in the eye and. he convinced me that he is a keynesian economist on steroids. when i look at this sequestration deal and the fiscal cliff and i think, what does the president want. he does not want to reform social security, medicaid, medicare. he has obamacare and a position where it will be hard to stop now. if they all collapse into the general fund, that fits his philosophy perfectly. he is happy to cut the military. what that the present want out of this? if the negotiations collapsed and the bush tax cuts when a wave, then that looks to me like that might be his goal. that is is get out of jail free cards.
. i want to raise taxes on those making over $250,000. the president has a strong hand. he will get almost everything he wants. on the other side, it will take a strong coalition of conservatives to hold this together and keep any responsibility here. it is not just the fiscal cliff, it is the fiscal waterfall of the grease-era insolvency that i am concerned about. a lot of this will be a sure raid on the part of the president testified to put the blame on the republicans. >> clearly elections have consequences and matter but one thing that is different, the dove temin was indicated, we are really ready to crash. this had insured the credit rating agencies.
to suggest that we should not to any type of sequester to bridge that cents a pretty clear signal and it sends a clear signal that the president is not serious about the financial situation we are in. this will lead to a downgrade of our outlook by moody's and perhaps a downgrade and our credit. let's just brigitte for a few months. there is the fear that we send a signal that we are not serious. i see the we had a new colleague of ours. thank you for being here.
>> the governor of new york has said that the disaster from hurricane sandy will cost about 30 million -- 30 billion in his state. if we need additional disaster aid, would you support it or would you insist that it be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget? >> i would like to see whatever the numbers are. this was actually not the case. this is outside of the debt deal. this is a big jump. certainly, this is an interesting situation that we find ourself and in order to help me york and new jersey. we essentially have to go to the
federal reserve or borrow more money. we'll have to look and see what those are. that becomes part of this scenario, this explosive situation of the fiscal waterfall. >> one of the things about disaster relief, there are people suffering their. we have a record of helping people out in those disasters. katrina, there were big mistakes made. there was a tremendous amount of money that was wasted down there. they had a request for $10 billion, i supported that. then, they wanted $58 billion. i asked for the plans.
i want to see the spreadsheet, i want to see the support documents. i want to see the adding machine tape. if it is not that, i want to see the dart board. i found out the next morning when i got the email, when joshua bolton gave me the plan. in that was included 300,000 trailer houses in the original plan, 270,000 of which were back ordered. there were plans for medications of future disasters. there were opportunists in the katrina disaster, and we know there was $1.4 billion of that that was wasted with duplicates social security numbers.
that is something, and experience of us who were there with katrina. i am asking the governors of the state to submit to congress a complete plan on not only were these resources need to go, but what kind of protections are there so they go the right place. that gets me a long ways down this path, and i will look for offsets, but i do not know that is a deal breaker. i will be looking for them so we can get them. >> what do you think a role paul ryan should play, and how willing be think he will be on your group? "new york times." >> i hope he is front and center, because he is the best
spokesperson on how serious the fiscal situation is and how to put us back on a sustainable path. i think all of us were impressed about how he handled himself on the campaign trail. i hope he is right in the middle of it. i anticipate he is going to be -- i assume that is where my colleagues are as well. >> i would just add to that that when you step back and look at the results and look at some of the conclusions that some have drawn, we are going to be clear of voices of leadership to lay out an agenda for the future. i think paul is a very important part of that. i was glad to see him come back into conference this morning. it was a bore welcome with a double standing ovation, but we are going to need clear voices to articulate future. how do you get to balance the spender we have in the white house? how can we get a balanced budget
amendment to the constitution? he has been a supporter of that. he has articulated that support for it during the campaign. we need to lay out an agenda, and paul ryan will be an important part of that. >> he will be part of the republican negotiating team as we move forward, and will be voting for him to remain eat -- to make sure he remains the budget committee chairman. we have bigger things to face now in the very near future. >> could you talk about the farm bill, what your priorities are, and what you're working on right now? >> i looked at the work product of the committee and say i would like to bring it to the floor during the lame duck. the senate as their version out there.
i do not want to look at the prospect of coming back in a new congress and starting over again from scratch. the disagreements out there are democrats do not want to cut snap programs, and they want to continue to expand its, and most of the ag producers have given up direct payments, and that is a big step along the line of what has been traditionally the farm bill. our disagreements have narrowed themselves and perhaps we have an opportunity to bring a bill to the floor, although i have not talked to the leadership. that is what i want to get done and get it to conference and get that done before we start from square one. >> i agree with many of those comments, and i think the christopher -- the principle that remains is the farm bill is about food stamps. 80%, and we have the whole ag committee talking about the
20%, and where the growth is. we have 47.1 million americans on food stamps, announced at 5:30 friday afternoon. massive increases under this administration, and response is we can have only $4 billion, in a room with 18 representatives from different states. we can transform that program that help gets to those of the most needy. we have to have those types of reforms. i plan to start that amendment on the floor. injured include fundamental discussion on ways we can improve and help poor people with changing the program, and we heard suggestions from multiple states, folks on the front lines and it's a this is what we need, we can do a better it up. if we have the opportunity, that should be part of that
discussion. the idea like any other entitlement from this administration that we can spend $80 billion a year and we do not want to reform that, the senate has made it clear, senate republicans have done a great job, but hopefully that will be a battle when we get the conference over the bill, which is $800 billion for food stamps over a trillion-dollar farm belt. >> we have the states that over the last several years been through referendums, seeking to regulate the means of production of our agricultural products. california might define that eggs coming into california shall be raised by hens raised in a certain cage size. that california agenda up violates the commerce clause of the constitution where
interstate commerce is regulated by congress, not the states. the founding fathers understood that, but regulating for legends needs to be stopped. i put an amendment on the farm belt to protect interstate congress which prohibits the states from regulating the means of production of our products, and there is a list that already exists in the code. that takes the states like california and arizona and florida out of the business and i was telling us how we're going to raise hens and produce eggs. that is an important piece that has been a fight in this campaign, that has not had it not apply, but that is something we have to have in the farm bill, and that is what i want to get into conference by the end of the year. >> i hope if the farm bill comes to the floor is an open roll, the amendment process can take place. i expect the conservatives to --
i do not know if we have the votes for it -- but at least we will start that the debate, separating the food stamp provisions from the other policies. since i am surrounded by other states, the other gentleman would like to speak as well. >> speaking as one who campaign in support of the house bill, without apology, i can tell you the farmers of north dakota like the house bill just fine, and not only did they have an objection to $16 billion more in cuts to a program that has grown 50% in the last four years, it only amounts to a 2% cut in the food stamp program, they like the fact in the house version that while giving up direct payments, and they're happy to do so, what they did not like in the senate version was this conservation compliance for participating in crop insurance
program. they do not need to be told how to farm. egg production -- in north dakota is wheat -- they did not need to be told how to sustain their land. these conservation compliance rules they find offensive, and i would love to see you vote on it and pass the house version of, or least vote on the house version, before i become a congressman. it could become a great relief to me. it is an example of the work of conservatives, truly compromising where compromise is appropriate, and in solving a problem. >> sire? >> -- sir? >> for the justice department to hack into private e-mail accounts, is that anything that concerns you? >> i believe a report that said
they had a subpoena. do you know about that? and i remember myself asking the question, what court did they go to? i do not remember the source of that in my blurry night trip to the internet. i recall picking that up. i appreciate you asking it, but i do not know the answer. >> i do not know, but i was struck that as a freshman member, and the more senior members here, the lack of willingness of this administration to share information with those of us who are supposed to make critical foreign-policy decisions in the budget process, very unwilling. this is another case of that. i was struck by this that you mean to tell me that the head of the cia uses gmail to committee approved it struck me that i was
concerned about this. i see that coming, and apparently he has agreed to testify. everybody should testify and provide as much openness ans possible. >> some of your colleagues on the senate side are talking about making a deal working with democrats on a compromise. what do you make of those efforts, and how far are you willing to go to strike the immigration deal with the democrats? >> that is a good question, and i would have been surprised if i did not hear it. i have seen a bit of a pattern over the years of people coming into this congress and taking a look at the immigration issue, thinking they have the negotiation skills to resolve one of the most complicated and
convoluted and far-reaching issues that i have seen in this congress. there is not a simple solution to this. each time there's a proposal that is brought up, i see a series of pitfalls. one of them is if there is going to be some kind of proposal to try to reach an agreement that has to do with the promise that there will be enforcement of immigration law, how can they propose such a thing with its president in the white house? he has violated the constitution, even by its own definition, and by the executive edict issued work permits that is a fabrication of the president of united states, not an act of congress. every other document that allows people to be lawfully present in united states is generated by this congress. to president directed u.scis produce a work permit. the promise of enforcement has
far less a lower than it has ever had, given the president's the fights of the constitution. that makes it difficult for any kind of agreement come out on immigration. that is one of the pieces where we are. then you will know on the republican side, you have heard lead voice is that say because of a loss of hispanic vote, the marginal loss, that we cannot build a coalition again unless we do something to make accommodations. i think people that come here from those countries often come from corrupt countries where they do not have their rule of law. the appreciate people being equal under lock in the united states, and i do not want to overreact, we should look at what happened to the conservatives who stayed home, the largest gender gap we have had in history, what happened to
the ron paul coalition, and libertarian coalition? there are a number of reasons why we did not add up to 50% plus one vote across this nation. i do not want to rush into that, and i did not know how they are going to offer enforcement in exchange for accommodation if you have a president who defies his oath to the constitution and his own definition of limitations with regard to immigration. >> i was an immigration lawyer for 15 years, and as a conservative voice, understand what steve is saying, but i think we have to realize as the republican party that we're never going to be a majority party if we do not figure out a way to reach the hispanic community. so we have to find what i call -- and i have talked about this for two years -- a conservative consensus on emigration. we have to figure out how steve and i will sit and agree on a bill and people at this table
that will actually do something about our broken immigration system. one of the biggest things that conservatives talk about often is that we want to fix a broken government. if you know anything about immigration law, this system is absolutely broken in the united states. we need to figure out a way where people can come to the united states through a legal system, border protection, all those things that we have to do, but at the same time we have to figure out what we can -- which cannot keep putting the ball for the next congress to fix this issue. so i try to get the conservatives here in the house to work on this issue, to find a solution to the immigration problem, because if we do not find the solution, then we had all these other reasons why we lost and we can enumerate all of them, but one of the main reasons we lost is because romney got 27% of the hispanic vote. if we continue to get 27% of the
hispanic vote for the rest of our lives, we will continue to lose every single presidential election out there. there is a way to do it, because hispanics agreed with us on social issues, on fiscal issues, they are usually business oriented. they believe all the things we believe in. they do not want higher taxes. we cannot even reach them with our message if they feel they are not welcome in our party. that is something that i am going to work on. i will work on for the next two years, and i hope i can work with people like steve and people that are from the far right to the far left on this issue because we have to find that solution to this problem. >> think i would like at come i have hired people like raul to adopt two children, the process that is a mess, there is some common sense things we can do. this president has had for
years.our we need leadership, and it starts there, and we need to have an electoral impact appeared in my district, the president is the best represent the whole country, and 51%, that is difficult for him to do that, but there is tremendous variability in the hispanic community in terms of status, desire, whether they want to be citizens, whether they want to be working here and there are folks that are working the system as well, illegally. all that needs to be looked at closely. there are no simple answers. this is one that cries out for the president of united states to quit politicking and get on with the job. you got four years now. that was the chance, and it will take many months or years to work to that. i appreciate your leadership. books like this, and we will follow it closely.
>> you have a president he knew we were working on immigration reform and compress, try to advance the ball. when people like marco rubio and myself, and he decided by executive order to do something that he had no authority to do. he decided to do something like that, and instead of advancing the ball on immigration, what he did was he poisoned the well so we would not be willing to work on immigration reform. if you think about it, the only reason we did not have emigration for during the bush administration, is because two gentlemen, rahm emanuel and barack obama, decided to vote for amendments to the immigration bill that actually helped unions. they were backed by the unions, and they decided that they would poison the well by voting for those amendments that killed immigration reform. nobody talks about that in the media.
it was the liberal labor unions, and it was barack obama in the senate who decided to poison the well. he did it again this time, and as republicans we have to be smarter than we have been on this issue in the past. we have to look past the idiocy of the other side and find a rational solution to immigration. >> i find common grand with that analysis, raul, and i think marco rubio has done a very good job of articulating some of the things that have emerged from this white house, and i do not know if you can make a strong case that republicans have been hostile on this dialogue so much as it has been the president's leadership that has divided people on the whole number of the everett categories, and he has profited from it. a recall the statement made by senator rubio, that the
president has divided people down the lines of race, ethnicity, gender, class, and each time for his own political gain at the expense of the very direction of the civilization, the culture of the indicted states of america. we are our kippur have to produce out of our republican team here, and the make -- we are going to have to produce at of our republican team a voice second all that back together. that is one of the essential components we can put forward. how can heal this country as americans and stop that class warfare, part of the fiscal cliff, stop the ethnic, gender warfare, the sexual orientation warfare, it is all driven by the president to put people against each other because he calculates each it's a political gain. he needs to be held accountable for that. history well, and we'd need to do that this time. >> we have time for one more question. >> over the long haul, and it's
been a debate, is paul ryan's budget plan the starting point for you guys, or will this discussion change that? > remember, even that questiis questionable. we thought it made more sense that it got to balance more quicker. that is the minimum where we need to go, because the white house, their budget did not get one single vote in the senate or house. 535-0. it did not get a single yes vote. that has got to be where we at least get to that level, if we
are or have any chance of solving this problem. >> other item, things have worsened considerably in the outlook, that we base that budget on. i believe that is the starting point, but the sequester is the work around, and the president announced and a national debate, we are not going to sequester. and a highly does that buy a ticket or -- by executive order, that is pretty interesting. i think the situation has worsened. that is the only reasonable sensible solution that has been on the table for our two years for the freshman, and that is the starting point. it is the only serious discussion point. alice rivlin says that again and again, and other folks are saying that as well. we are looking for a serious proposal. the president has offered the same proposal that has gotten no code street it is 2009 all over again, mr. president.
we are a lot further in the hole than when you started. >> i will quickly say that we need a budget that balances were quickly than the ryan budget balances. we cannot serve economically going down that path. a look war for a budget that gets us -- i will look for a budget that gets us bear before we go off that waterfall. [indiscernbile] >> are you guys understand that is real new revenue, or are you talking about dynamic scoring? >> what i hear is he is talking about reforming the tax code and that we will get revenue through growth. that is what i hear. i do not know if that is what everybody is hearing as well. at this point, i think that should be our mind, that we will
be o.k. but new revenue that comes through growth in our gdp. >> the speaker sent a letter to the conference that he was pretty clear. no increase in tax rates. that is clear it there, and when you talk of revenue, it is the idea of growing our economy, which we all agree on, but are certainly different proposals to do that. i want to thank everybody for john s. today, including our new congressmen-elect. thank you for being here. thank you for c-span 4 durning yes. thank you. -- thank you for c-span for joining us. thank you. [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> u.s. house should gavel back in within the next 10 minutes or so. today they were working on the rule for a bill seeking to normalize trade relations with russia. the bill includes provisions that would impose economic sanctions if you rights violations are discovered. they will gavel back in on the votes on the rule and one other vote, and back tomorrow morning for legislative work at 9:00 eastern. we will have a house live with the return in the next few minutes. the chairman of the president's council of economic advisers but today at the economic club of
washington, focusing on the u.s. debt problem and the so-called fiscal cliff. >> we are very pleased today to have the chairman of the president's council of economic advisers with us. he is a native of new jersey. he went to undergraduate school at cornell, where he was a high jumper on the track team. he then went to harvard to get his ph.d. in economics, and his adviser was none other than larry summers. he has an academic career and is now has been a named professor at princeton, teaching economics, but he is not on his second tour of duty in the obama administration. at the beginning of the obama and its ministers and, he served at treasury, and then went back to princeton and was the board backed by the president to become the chairman of the
council of economic positions -- advisors, a position he assumed a year ago. we're pleased to have you here, and to everybody wants to know one thing. are we going to fall off the fiscal cliff or not? what is the answer? >> the answer is that we should not, because these are solvable problems. we are working away at them. the president yesterday met with business leaders to discuss and of the year issues, the fiscal cliff, also areas of concern to business. the day before he met with labor leaders, other leaders, and the president's approach has been clear all along. he is looking for a balanced solution, a solution that is balanced in terms of raising additional revenue, raised from the most fortunate top 2%, income earners in the u.s.. also reduces spending, so i did
the president's position has been clear. these are solvable problems. we have them within our capacity to solve them. it is a matter of political will. >> let's talk about the process. how much revenue as the president want to pick up, use 10-year-number, and what would he like have as a solution that you can get in a lame-duck session? how much revenue is he trying to pick up? >> what i would point people to is the president's budget. it has in it about $1.50 trillion additional revenue over the 10 year budget window, and also step back and say what is the goal of the president's budget? the goal of the budget is to put the u.s. on a sustainable fiscal pact and put us in a position where our debt is not rising relative to the size of the economy, as well as to support the economy in the short run and make important
investments we need to make so we remain the most competitive, productive nation on earth. >> right now the president is talking about in the campaign about having marginal rates go up for the upper 2%. these are people who make $250,000 and above. he would like to take the marginal rate up to 39.6%, but does he also wanted to have detection limitations for that element, or is he happy to get the increase in marginal rates? >> we would like to see a tax code that is more fair, more efficient. he lay that out in his budget. what he has laid out in his budget is an increase in the top right back to where they were in the clinton years, which were very successful years for the economy. as well as a broader base which most economists would agree is the way of having a more efficient tax code. but what